Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

British Airports Authority

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Airports Authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The chairman and I meet regularly.

Mr. Neubert: Now that the aviation security charge is to be doubled next April, and landing fees at Heathrow are to be increased by 40 per cent., what contribution are airports making to the Government's campaign for cheaper air travel?

Mr. Tebbit: I think that my hon. Friend must accept two factors: first

that there is no justification for airports being a burden on the taxpayer, and therefore the passenger must pay the cost of the airports; second, that the extremely sharp increase in the levy this year is necessary because the levy that was set by the previous Government for the current year was totally and completely inadequate—

Mr. Russell Kerr: To deal with inflation.

Mr. Tebbit: To deal, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) says, with the inflation which was caused by his Government's surrender to the wage demands of last winter.

Mr. Donald Stewart: If, on the ground of inflation, the Minister is justifying an increase of 40 per cent. in respect of a London airport, how does he justify a proposed increase of 400 per cent. in respect of the two airports in my constituency?

Mr. Tebbit: Again, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that even though the Government accept that in the Scottish Highlands there is a social service element in the operation of the airfields, the loss cannot go on increasing indefinitely. There must, therefore, be increases to meet the deficits that are being incurred.

Sir Anthony Royle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he underline to him the deep concern that


is being felt by many of the residents who live around Heathrow airport, particularly in the Richmond area, at the great increase in aircraft noise? Will he ask him to ensure that he will not apply for a fifth terminal to follow the possible fourth terminal which might be announced this afternoon?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right to express the concern of his constituents about aircraft noise around Heathrow although I believe, not least with the agreement of the European Community on the banning of all noisy jet aircraft, that the noise will diminish.
As for any possible fourth or fifth terminal, I suggest that my hon. Friend might like to raise that issue in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement later this afternoon.

Mr. Jessel: Can part of the £20 million made annually by the British Airports Authority on duty-free whisky sales be used to provide double glazing for people who live under the noise shadow at Heathrow and other airports?

Mr. Tebbit: Since the Authority pays the cost of such double glazing, the profits on duty-free liquor do, in part, provide that double glazing.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Preliminary to my right hon. Friend's statement later in the day, can my hon. Friend say how long it is since his Department received the Glidewell report on the fourth terminal at Heathrow? Will that document be published and, if so, when?

Mr. Tebblt: I advise my right hon. and learned Friend to await the statement that my right hon. Friend will make later this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall not be as long on other questions as we were on that one.

Airports Policy

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to make a statement on the third London airport.

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider a regional alternative to providing a third London airport.

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to make a further statement on the third London airport.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): I shall be making a statement on airports policy later this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Members concerned will wait I shall see that they, but not those who rise now, are called when the statement is made.

Soviet Bloc Ships (Freight Rates)

Mr. Waldegrave: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what sort of defensive measures against the effects of subsidized freight rates offered by merchant fleets within the Soviet bloc are being considered.

Mr. Tebbit: We have power to control the number of calls made at United Kingdom ports by such ships, and the cargoes that they carry. We can also control rates and impose charges. The position is kept under regular review. But unilateral United Kingdom action would not be fully effective and we would prefer to act in concert with other countries, notably within the EEC.

Mr. Waldegrave: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give an assurance that in trade deals with the Soviet Union, which involve our supplying the Russians with the technology that they badly need, he will consider trading off gains that the Russians need for international gains on the shipping front?

Mr. Tebbit: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. On the whole, we have quite good relationships with the Soviet Union on shipping matters, especially technical matters. We are constantly trying to find ways of living with the Russians in relation to the pricing of freighting on both their ships and ours.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Minister accept that there is some inconsistency in the attitude towards alleged Russian unfair competition and the attitude towards American companies which are charged more by British shipping companies to bring their products to Britain and therefore legislation is passed to protect British companies?

Mr. Tebbit: There is no inconsistency. The two matters are not related in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is right that we should have legislation to protect the legitimate rights of British companies and British residents to act within the law in the United Kingdom without their being prosecuted for it in the United States. It is right that we should also protect our shipping industry against non-commercial organisations that may dump capacity on the market.

Inflation

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the present rate of inflation.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the present three-monthly, six-monthly and yearly increases in the inflation rate.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): The retail prices index has increased by 2·9 per cent., 10·1 per cent. and 17·4 per cent. over the last three, six and 12 months, respectively.

Mr. Evans: When does the Minister expect inflation to reach 20 per cent.?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I recall that the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) predicted that inflation would reach that level by the end of this year. There is no sign that it has yet done so. It is the Government's overriding priority, through their economic policies, to overcome inflation. We are resolutely tackling the daunting and deep-seated problems that we inherited. The problems will not be overcome in a matter of months, or without recourse to severe remedies, but it is only by resolving the problems that we can hope to restore the long-term price stability yearned for by the people of this country. Our task would be a good deal easier if, instead of carping criticism from the Opposition, we received some constructive support for our policies.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the Minister recall that during the last general election campaign she posed as the housewive's friend, and on several occasions made statements saying that she would reduce the rate of inflation? In view of the utterly disastrous figures that she has

announced now, will she forthwith resign and apologise to the British people for misleading them?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I made no specific statement. The only poseur at the last election was the previous Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who said that there was no sign that inflation would be taking off again. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, his Government had five years to show what their counter-inflation policies could achieve. What they did achieve was a 110 per cent. increase in prices. The present Government have no intention of repeating policies which produce such disastrous results.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to annualise the past three months' inflation figures they would produce an annual inflation rate of 12·6 per cent.?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is roughly correct. The high inflation that we are facing today is a direct consequence of five years during which the Labour Government failed to face the economic realities that confronted them, squandered precious time and resources for political gain and, finally, left the country to pick up the huge bills that must now be paid. That is the reality underlying the unacceptably high rates of inflation that will be with us for some time to come.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that this country has the highest rate of inflation of any industrialised country? As a result of last month's figures we moved straight to the top of the league. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that over five of the past six months of her Government we have seen, on a six-monthly basis, inflation in double figures, which must lead to 20 per cent. on a 12-month basis, and there are a whole series of charges still in the pipeline, for example, rents, mortgages, and transport charges, still to find their way into the retail price index? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that that is an appalling indictment of a Government who have deliberately increased the rate of inflation by the VAT increases in the last Budget?

Mrs. Oppenheim: What I recognise is that we inherited accelerating inflation,


accelerating raw material costs, accelerating pay settlements, an acceleration in the money supply and a deterioration in the balance of payments. Those are the ingredients that have contributed to the present high levels of inflation and will, as the right hon. Gentleman said, take some time to work through. Meanwhile, we are tackling the underlying causes of these ills, and that is the only way to effect a cure. That is what we intend to do.

Passenger and Commercial Vehicles

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received about the prices at which Japanese and East European passenger and commercial vehicles are landed in the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I have received no representations about prices of Japanese vehicles. Nor have I yet been given any firm evidence that vehicles from Eastern Europe are being sold here at below the cost of production and distribution; but discussions are continuing at official level between my Department and representatives of the motor industry.

Mr. Miller: The representations are on the way to my hon. Friend. Can he give an assurance that they will be considered seriously, and that action will be expeditious if the case is substantiated?

Mr. Parkinson: The Department has an anti-dumping unit that is available to help industries which believe that they have a case and wish to have help in making it. We shall act on any information that my hon. Friend cares to make available.

Mr. Alan Clark: Has my hon. Friend's Department made any study of the practicality or possible consequences of a tariff policy, or do his civil servants think that the subject is so heretical that they may jeopardise their career prospects by getting anywhere near it?

Mr. Parkinson: I remind my hon. Friend that we have today signed the MTNs that have been renegotiated in the Tokyo round. The Government, along with the Governments of all developed countries, have committed themselves to a policy of reducing tariff barriers and getting

rid of non-tariff barriers. We believe that that is the way forward.

Mr. Leighton: As restrictions have been imposed on Japanese car imports, is it not illogical not to do the same on EEC car imports? It is from these countries that the majority of imports come.

Mr. Parkinson: It would be against our Treaty obligations to impose the restrictions suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Textiles (Origin Marking)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from the Scottish Knitwear Council on the subject of misleading labelling of textiles by foreign manufacturers, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Parkinson: The Scottish Knitwear Council wrote to me on Friday seeking an amendment to the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. This matter is now under consideration by my Department.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister were to buy a sweater marked "Pringle", would he not think that it came from Hawick, but if he were to look closely at the label and found that there was a tiny "s" in front of the name, making it "Springle" would-he not discover that it came from Taiwan? Is there not a need for labelling legislation, and should it not be a requirement in mail order catalogues to list the country of origin?

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a condition of the Trade Descriptions Act that the name or mark must be accompanied by a conspicuous indication of the country of manufacture. My view is that what the hon. Gentleman describes does not fit in with the Trade Descriptions Act and is not a conspicuous indication. I suggest that he advises the manufacturers to report the matter to the trading standards authority in their area which is responsible for enforcing the law.

Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek to repeal the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre): No, Sir.

Mr. Hunt: Will my hon. Friend look urgently into the affairs of the Hairdressing Council? Is he aware of the proposal to replace it by a body quite outside the terms of the 1964 Act? Is not this, coming on top of the police inquiries into the financial affairs of the Hairdressing Council, yet another indication of gross irregularity in the conduct of the council's affairs, and would it not be far more sensible to allocate responsibility for training and registration to either the joint training council or the National Hairdressers' Federation?

Mr. Eyre: As my hon. Friend knows, the Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill. Under the terms of the Act, my Department has no power to intervene in the running of the council. I shall consider all the other points that my hon. Friend has raised and write to him.

Prices

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received about price increases which call for the use of his present statutory powers to restrain or control prices.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I naturally receive a number of different types of representation about prices. As I have made clear on numerous occasions, the powers which exist were seldom used by the previous Government except in the context of EEC subsidies. They are at present being used in connection with the EEC subsidy on butter.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many people, including those in consumer organisations and the trade union movement, are now utterly desperate, feeling that the Government have thrown away all powers to control prices at any stage of crisis, as at this moment? Does the right hon. Lady realise that many people are facing the bitterest and worst Christmas they have known, with the prices of bread, of eggs and ofbeer—all working-class mass-consumption commodities—going through the roof, so that ordinary people are on the point of starvation for the first time in many years?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Naturally, I sympathise with people who are having to

tackle a high rate of inflation, but the Labour Government's approach to tackling inflation was to introduce a successsion of policies designed, through price control and the Price Commission Act, temporarily to disguise inflation and deceive consumers for the sake of short-term political benefit. Not only were such policies expensive and time-wasting failures but they were cruel, since they misled consumers about the true rate of inflation, which they have to face in the end. The present Government have no intention of resuscitating such disreputable policies.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the right hon. Lady insist on her civil servants putting a hit of truth into her replies? Will she accept that it was her Government who doubled VAT—one of the most inflationary things to happen since the election—and that mortgage interest rate going up to 15 per cent. and minimum lending rate at 17 per cent., are calculated further to increase the rate of inflation? Will the Government accept responsibility for this?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman should not blame my civil servants for my replies, for which I claim authorship. In fact, we have not doubled VAT, but the Labour Government doubled prices, and the short-term manipulations of prices upon which they embarked served only to delay the increases which have to come through in the end. The factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are just some of the factors, but by no means the main ones, in the increase in inflation which the country is having to face today and will have to face for some time to come.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the right hon. Lady recall removing the restriction on the price of bread almost as soon as she got into office? Can she explain why the price of bread has now risen by another 2½p for a standard loaf? Will she, as Minister, start looking forward instead of backward, and answer the question? Will she tell us whether we shall reach an inflation rate of 20 per cent.?

Mrs. Oppenheim: First, we are looking forward to our economic policies restoring long-term price stability, which this country has not known for years.


The reason why bread prices have increased during this period is that bread producers' costs have risen as a result of raw material prices rising.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister realise that people are more worried about the price of bread on earth than about the price of pie in the sky, because they expect that if the Government's policies are pursued over the next four years as they have been over the past six months the price of pie in the sky will be prohibitive?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Naturally, I am aware of those concerns. That is why it is the overriding purpose of this Government, through their economic policies, to overcome inflation which, among other things, affects the price of bread.

Scotch Whisky

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Trade in which countries there remain non-tariff barriers which impede the import of Scotch whisky; and what steps he is taking to have these barriers removed.

Mr. Parkinson: There are non-tariff barriers against the import of Scotch whisky in many developing and some developed countries. The implementation of the agreements reached in the multilateral trade negotiations should result in a major reduction in barriers in North America, and proceedings are being undertaken in the European Court against a number of alleged discriminatory practices in EEC countries.

Mr. Sims: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the structure of the liquor tax as distinct from the import tariff on whisky and the structure of tax on liquor generally in Japan is such that a relatively small increase in the trade price or a relatively small change in the exchange rate may mean that a commodity such as Scotch whisky falls into a far higher bracket and is penalised? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the negotiations that have taken place on this matter between the EEC and the Japanese Government, bearing in mind that this problem impinges particularly on Scotch whisky, which is an important part of our export trade to Japan?

Mr. Parkinson: As part of the multilateral trade negotiations the Japanese have agreed to a number of cuts in their tariffs, which will help whisky, but through the EEC we are pressing them to relax further controls, because—I agree with my hon. Friend—the Japanese are discriminating, and will be even after the cuts, against an important British export.

Mr. Dalyell: What would be the Government's advice to a meeting taking place in Glasgow today among the trade unions concerned about the bulk export of Scotch whisky to Japan? Have the Government any thoughts on this matter?

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the EDC on Scotch whisky considered this matter and came to the conclusion that it would be against the interests of the industry to prohibit the export of bulk whisky, and the Government have taken that advice.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister recognise that his Government are extremely lax, as their predecessors were, in defending the interests of the Scotch whisky industry, in view of the contribution to the home Exchequer and the important part which the export of Scotch whisky plays in our balance of payments? Will the hon. Gentleman at least press upon the Canadian Government the need to get their provincial liquor boards to take a fairer attitude to whisky?

Mr. Parkinson: I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I did that when I was in Ottawa two weeks ago. I pressed not only on the Federal Government but on representatives of the two provincial Governments whom I saw that their present practices were unfair, and I urged them to implement their commitment under the multilateral trade negotiations.

Foreign Airlines

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he intends to seek powers to enable him to direct foreign airlines to use particular airports in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. Such powers are already available under the Air Navigation Order 1976, should the need arise.

Mr. Adley: But as the failure to use them is entirely due to the retaliation that


such use would bring on this country, and as the absence of the use of those powers has resulted in the failure of successive Governments to do anything about any major transfer of airlines from Heathrow to Gatwick, does not my hon. Friend think that the creation of a new third airport in the South-East will mean no more than the creation of an airport used by non-scheduled and charter services? Is it not a cheaper and easier answer to ban these services from Heathrow and Gatwick?

Mr. Tebbit: As my hon. Friend knows, whole-plane charters are already banned from Heathrow. I believe that airlines will find, if congestion is unbearable at Heathrow as it reaches its eventual capacity, that they will have no choice but to go either to Gatwick or to any other facility that we may make available.

Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that while there is scope for increasing international traffic at both Heathrow and Gatwick, if it is to be encouraged at Gatwick the number of charter flights from there is clearly far too high? Will he therefore look into this matter again with a view to seeing whether charter holiday flights in particular could proceed from other regional airports just as well as from Gatwick?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that there will be many more holiday charter flights from regional airports to cope with the demands from the regions. However, Gatwick is operating well under capacity. It could take a great deal more traffic.

European Community (Council of Ministers)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement about the recent meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

Mr. Parkinson: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 21 November.

Mr. Price: How far has the EEC Council of Ministers take into account the effects of current and pending increases in world oil prices on world trade, and the consequential detrimental effects on the economies of EEC countries?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, that subject was discussed at the European Council. It is a matter that has been causing the Heads of Governments of the developed countries great concern, especially the Governments of OECD countries. As he also knows, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could tell him in more detail, we are playing our part in trying to ensure that the West uses wisely the available supplies of oil.

Mr. Spriggs: At the EEC Ministers' Conference, was the evidence discussed that was provided by ITV about farmers driving droves of cattle across the border of one country into another—sometimes several times over with the same herd of cattle—and each farmer drawing the grant allowed under the EEC farming policy on each occasion?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not wish to be unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but that issue was not discussed at the Council meeting that I attended. If he refers the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am sure that he will receive a reply.

Mr. Dalyell: Harking back to the knitwear problem, has there been any discussion at the EEC Council of the effects on Europe as a whole of imports from the Far East, often under false labelling conditions, bearing in mind that the German knitwear industry has almost ceased to exist? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Italians seem to have resisted infiltration, in a way that we have found impossible in Scotland and in the North of England?

Mr. Parkinson: Textiles and the problems of the textile industry are discussed at every meeting of the Council. That has certainly been so at the meetings that I have attended. However, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred has not been discussed.

Coal Imports

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many tons of coal have been imported into the United Kingdom during each of the last five years; how many tons have been contracted for the present year and1980–81; and what was the kind of coal and the price per ton in each case.

Mr. Parkinson: With permission, I will circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of the fact that we are a trading nation the importation of coal will do great harm to the future of the mining industry? When will the Government wake up? Many imports inflict great harm on our traditional industries. They import unemployment.

Total imports
Coking coal
Steam coal
Anthracite
Gas coal




Thousand tonnes
£*
Thousand tonnes
£*
Thousand tonnes
£*
Thousand tonnes
£*
Thousand tonnes
£*


1974
…
3,541
17·55
874
25·18
2,594
14·69
73
27·63
—
—


1975
…
5,070
20·78
791
30·91
4,144
18·33
135
36·77
—
—


1976
…
2,836
29·13
1,249
36·77
1,445
21·46
142
40·16
—
—


1977
…
2,439
32·53
1,180
36·45
971
24·62
269
44·16
18
29·43


1978
…
2,352
32·75
1,374
34·56
751
25·17
218
46·71
9
50·60


January-October 1979
…
3,141
31·60
1,753
32·24
1,195
27·91
192
48·61
—
—

Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics (SITC/R Sub-group 321.4 and SITC/R2 groups 322.1 and 322.2).

Notes:

* Average value per tonne, cif.

(a) Average values per tonne are not true prices. They reflect differences in the quality and sources of the coal imported, and other factors.

(b) It is understood that the electricity generating boards expect to import about 2·6 million tonnes of steam coal in the financial year 1979–80 and 4 million to 5 million tonnes in 1980–81. The British Steel Corporation has announced that 24 per cent. of its coking coal requirements will be imported in 1979, compared with 14 per cent. in 1978. BSC imports in 1980 can be expected to be at least at the level of this year. Plans for imports of anthracite beyond those shown above are not known, nor are import values for later periods.

Exports

Mr. Austin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the current level of the British export trade.

Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir. The volume of our exports has recovered well in the second half of this year, but I believe that there is room for further improvement.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the major problem facing our exporters is the heavy overvaluation of the £ sterling, which is hitting exports and subsidising a flood of imports that are eliminating jobs in this country? The result is that we are now perilously close to becoming a net importer of manufactured goods. As no conceivable increase in productivity can overcome the over-valuation barrier, will the hon. Gentleman hold talks with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and make urgent representations for an

The Government seem to do nothing about it. They merely sit back and smile.

Mr. Parkinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is overstating his case. Imports are a relatively small proportion of our consumption. We export a small part of our coal. We need imports to get the proper mix.

Following is the information:

engineered devaluation to eliminate the over-valuation barrier for exporters?

Mr. Parkinson: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's misguided question is "No, Sir".

Mr. William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a mistake to blame the so-called over-valued pound? Does he further agree that we are lacking competitive prices? The price of exports is only one element. Does my hon. Friend agree that delivery dates and after-sales service are equally important?

Mr. Parkinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In my discussions with manufacturers I find that they, too, accept that there is scope, by improved design, improved quality, better productivity, better delivery dates and better after-sales service, to counter some of the problems—I admit that there are some—that are caused by the harder currency.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to come back to a further question about knitwear,


but the industry is in a critical state. Will a study be made of the various difficulties that are faced by British knitwear exporters in the markets of our EEC partners?

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his persistence and on the way in which he supports an important industry. I shall take his comments into account.

USSR

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total value of exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the total value of imports from that country for the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Mr. Parkinson: For the period November 1978 to October 1979 the total value of our exports to the Soviet Union was £433 million. Our imports from that country for the same period were £842 million.

Mr. Chapman: I recognise that the proportion of 2: 1 has been consistent over the years. I recognise also that 30 per cent. of our imports consist of oil and 40 per cent. of diamonds. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a greater resolve by the Government to balance the trade between the two countries, even if that means giving an assurance that we shall refuse to take any oil imports from the USSR after we become oil sufficient?

Mr. Parkinson: Most of the items that we import from the Soviet Union are those that we need; for example, raw materials for which there are, perhaps, no other sources of supply. A substantial part of the trade is in diamonds and furs, which are subsequently re-exported. I want to see our exports to the Soviet Union increased. There is scope for that. I do not believe that the way forward is to restrict the importation of items that we need.

Mr. Emery: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how much of the credit that was negotiated by the Labour Government for Russia is still outstanding? Will it continue for long? Would it not be much more useful to extend credit—perhaps on not quite such favourable terms—to British Commonwealth and

Third world nations to encourage them to buy from Britain?

Mr. Parkinson: About £400 million of that line of credit is still available. The agreement ends in about two months' time. I prefer not to comment on the third part of my hon. Friend's question. Britain needs to trade wherever it can. Our trade with other countries implies neither approval nor disapproval of their politics.

Mr. Robert Atkins: At this festive time, may I ask my hon. Friend whether we need Russian Christmas cards?

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the problem to the notice of the House and ensuring that the House retains its interest in it. I, like him, was staggered by the increased number of Russian imports in that trade. As I said in reply to an earlier question, if the industry feels that there is an antidumping case to be made—I know that it does—my Department is available to help with advice about processing that case.

Mr. Skinner: Does acceptance of trade with the Soviet Union give it any credibility in the eyes of the Government?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands his question, but I do not.

Imports (Origin Marking)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the outcome of the survey that the Minister for Consumer Affairs instigated with the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and the Women's Institutes on origin marking.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress his Department has made in its review of the need for cutlery to be marked with its country of origin.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am considering the interesting results of the origin marking surveys carried out for me by the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and by the National Consumer Council as part of my review of policy in this area. Cutlery was among the items included in these surveys. I shall make a statement to the House announcing my


intentions in due course. The Women's Institutes were not involved in this exercise.

Mr. Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if origin marking is undertaken it should be for consumer protection rather than for trade protection?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Origin marking has attracted a considerable amount of interest and attention in recent years. I considered it desirable to have two independent surveys reflecting a broad range of views to help me in reaching my decision. The main purpose of those surveys was to discover not just whether consumers wanted to see the country of origin displayed on the goods they purchased but whether they needed this information to exercise their choice in an informed manner. I think that both surveys point to that conclusion.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are many consumers in this country who want to buy British and would like to see "Made in Sheffield" displayed more prominently on more products available for purchase?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Yes, I am aware of that. I am equally aware, as a result of the surveys that have been carried out, that buy-British is not the only motive that prompts consumers to want origin marking. They sometimes want to know the country of origin in order not to exercise that choice.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why was the Minister so selective in the people whom she asked to give her information? As she carefully ignored at least three other major women's organisations which complained to her, will she please, when looking at the problem of country of origin marking, ensure that EEC countries must also mark their goods?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am not aware that any other women's organisations made approaches to me on this matter before I referred it to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and the National Consumer Council. In fact, I sought the opinions of more people on this matter than any Government have ever done before, as I considered it an important problem.

Mr. Marlow: As many people think that they are buying British cars, although they are buying cars which look like British cars but are made in foreign manufacturing plants, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a system under which, if British manufacturers bring in vehicles from their overseas plants, such vehicles are marked with a plate showing the country of origin?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I propose to enter into more detailed discussion than has hitherto been possible on the whole question of origin marking.

Mr. Stoddart: Is it true that suits are being imported from Romania into Germany, where they are then relabeled and imported into this country outside the scope of the import restrictions?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I understand that that is not correct. There is a similar question down for answer on the Order Paper later.

Mr. John Fraser: Has the right hon. Lady considered the problem of cutlery blanks coming in from the Far East, being plated in Sheffield and sold to the British public, creating the impression that they are British-produced? Will she make a definition order under the Trade Descriptions Act to ensure that there are foreign origin markings on this type of item?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I gave particular consideration to that problem. The question of silver plating of cutlery blanks made elsewhere will not be excluded from any further action that I propose to take in this matter.

Imports (Synthetic Fibres)

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council of Trade Ministers the problems caused for the carpet manufacturing industry by the cheap fuel policy for synthetic fibre production operated by the United States Government.

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will press for effective action arising from the Council of Minister's decision on 20 November relating to United States textile imports into the United Kingdom before the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend and I have been pressing hard for urgent action on this problem, and the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 December will receive a report on the Commission's consultations with the United States about EEC imports of synthetic textiles, including the carpet sector.
I will be attending the Council, and will ensure that our interests are taken into account in the discussions on the action to be taken.

Mr. Lyons: When the Minister attends the Council will he bear in mind the explosive nature of the increase in imports of United States carpets this year and the heavy redundancies in the carpet manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, especially in West Yorkshire, as well as the poor prognosis for the industry in 1980? Will he bear in mind that when British manufacturers want to buy this cheap fibre, which is available in the United States because of the two-tier policy of the United States Government, somehow they do not find it easy to obtain it? Is not the result that American carpets have an enormous price advantage, which is grossly unfair? Will the Minister consider raising the tariff on United States carpets of this kind, or banning them altogether?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question was unreasonably long.

Mr. Parkinson: As my right hon. Friend and I recognise the important nature of this serious problem, we have been leading the campaign within the EEC to get action taken. It was as a result of pressure from us that the article 23 consultations were started. We shall continue the pressure to make sure that the industry receives the help that we believe it needs.

Mr. Trippier: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation in the textile industry in North-East Lancashire is so serious, with mills closing down and others threatened with closure, that unless he takes effective and courageous action immediately the situation will deteriorate still further?

Mr. Parkinson: The most important words that my hon. Friend used were "effective action". We wish to see effective action taken as quickly as possible.

That is why we have been keeping up the pressure within the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the Minister aware that imports from the United States are not merely of carpets, and that they affect not merely the carpet industry but the whole textile industry? Will he take action to help the Lancashire industry in this respect.

Mr. Parkinson: We are aware that synthetic fibres—not just tufted carpets but the whole range of products—are affected by the unfairness of the American dual pricing system for energy, and that has been the subject of the discussions and the pressure.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister realise that if OPEC puts up the price of oil still further the dual energy pricing system in the United States that he mentioned will add a greater burden to the problems of the carpet and textile industries? Is not the problem much more urgent than perhaps he suggests in his answer?

Mr. Parkinson: I regard this as an extremely urgent problem. It is one for which we have had to fight very hard within the Council of Ministers. More and more members are beginning to see the rightness of our case.

Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of the system operated by the United States Government, American tufted carpets can be imported into Britain at prices which, in many cases, are lower than those at which British manufacturers can produce them? Is he also aware that, because of the extremely efficient distribution system in this country, our market is wide open? Will he take urgent action to bring about joint action to resolve this serious problem?

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that what I said in answer to earlier questions demonstrates that we agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis of the problem. I hope that we have his support in the action that we are taking.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that this problem is reaching a catastrophic level, and that the likelihood is that the Council of Ministers will dilly-dally over this for several months? Is he aware that during the GATT multilateral trade


negotiations the Council of Ministers, at the insistence of the previous Government, undertook to take the appropriate measures under GATT without delay? That was said on 3 April this year. Will the Minister undertake that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who has so far not answered any questions today on this or any other matter—will make a statement to the House, after the Council of Ministers meeting, on what the Council of Ministers decides? May I further urge the Government to give urgent consideration to imposing interim protection? As I read Council regulation 926/79, is it not open to the British Government, operating within the terms of the European Community, to take interim action to stop the flood of imports from the United States, which the Opposition call on the Government to do urgently?

Mr. Parkinson: If I may say so, I had not noticed the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) leaping to his feet this afternoon. That was his first question. The Government recognise the urgency of the problem and are determined to take effective action. Tub thumping of the kind the right hon. Gentleman favours will not help. We believe that we are making progress. We do not expect months to pass without action. We expect to see action taken quickly. We shall press the matter and report back to the House on the Council of Ministers meeting.

Mr. Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that the carpet factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire and the Axminster factories, which set the trend in certain types of carpet in this country, are being undercut by unfair competition? Will he consider the practice of the Americans who, in dealing with dumping, always seem to be able to act much faster than ourselves? Will he look at the reasons why they do that? Does he realise that we want effective action, of course, but that we want it quickly?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the reasons why it is not perhaps as easy for us as it is for the Americans is that the Commission has the ultimate authority, and we have to act within the Commission. We have to take the rest of our partners with us. Unilateral action is likely to

be ineffective and not deal with the problem. The essence of this is to get effective action taken. We believe that effective action is best taken on a Community-wide basis.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister agree that the question is not about the urgency of the problem, on which the House is agreed, but about the urgency of action? Does he further agree that if action is not taken urgently there will be no textile and carpet industries left to protect?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, Sir.

Manufacturers' Guarantees

Mr. Major: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that manufacturers' guarantees are worthwhile for consumers.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Yes, Sir. These guarantees can confer worthwhile additional rights on consumers. At the same time, they cannot deprive consumers of their rights under the sale of goods and unfair contract terms legislation.

Mr. Major: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that some guarantees contain restrictive clauses which have no validity in law and yet gravely mislead consumers? Will she take action to deal with this problem?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Yes, I am concerned that some guarantees might mislead consumers about their normal legal rights, although it is an offence to do so. I welcome the new guide for manufacturers published by the Director General of Fair Trading and I hope that manufacturers will increasingly give worthwhile guarantees in simple terms which people can understand.

Mr. Greville Janner: Instead of issuing advice or guidance from the Director General of Fair Trading, would it not be better to enforce the rules so that manufacturers stop including in guarantees exclusion clauses which they well know are void under the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973?

Mrs. Oppenheim: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, these exclusion clauses are also an offence under more recent legislation. As far as my knowledge runs, those provisions are being enforced to the full.

Mr. Flannery: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the most important guarantees is often a trademark? When cheap cutlery comes from the Far East to Sheffield, the implication of the trademark is that it is made in Sheffield, whereas most of it is made in South Korea. Will she do something to stop that kind of so-called guarantee?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I have already dealt with that matter in an earlier question, and I have announced the intentions that I propose to pursue.

Value Added Tax Inclusive Pricing

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he intends to take on the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee report on value added tax inclusive pricing.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I intend as soon as possible to lay before Parliament a draft order dealing with the use of VAT-inclusive pricing. This will give effect to the proposals of the Director General of Fair Trading as modified by the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee.

Mr. Dover: Does the Minister think that the implementation of the recommendations of the report will help the fight against inflation, or give rise to further inflation?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My purpose in introducing these regulations is to prevent confusion on the part of the consumer. In general, it is my intention that the regulations will require that either VAT-inclusive prices are displayed or prices showing clearly the amount of VAT.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the order be laid under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or under the Prices Act 1974?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am reviewing this matter. I hope that it will be possible to lay the order under the Fair Trading Act. If that is not possible, I shall use whatever other powers are available to me.

Petrol Sales (Unit Prices)

Mr. John Patten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps if petrol is sold in metric quantities to ensure that consumers are able to

make a meaningful price comparison between imperial and metric quantities.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I propose to vary the existing provisions of the Petrol Prices (Display) Order 1978 so that where petrol is sold by the litre the equivalent price per gallon must also be clearly indicated. Consultations with the trade and with motoring interests will be opened shortly.

Mr. Patten: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. May I ask her to assure the House that confusion for the consumer, which might be caused in the future, will be kept to a minimum not only in this respect but in all areas where imperial and metric measures overlap?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am concerned on two counts. The first is that there should be fair competition. The second is that the motorist should be in no doubt about the value that he is getting for his money, whether garages are selling in imperial or in metric quantities. This is true of all other areas in which the problem arises.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Post Office to see whether it will continue to quote parcel prices in pounds and ounces as well as in kilograms?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I have already had such words with the Post Office. There is no statutory requirement for it not to do so.

Multi-fibre Arrangement

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Parkinson: As I have made clear in previous statements, the Government recognise that there will be a need for a continuing orderly marketing arrangement in textiles after the present MFA has expired.

The present agreement came into effect at the beginning of 1978 for a period of four years, and no such negotiations are currently in progress. But the management of the MFA is a matter for continuing discussion between the United Kingdom, the European Commission, and other member States.

Mr. Davidson: Surely the Minister is aware that continuing discussions are of no help to the Lancashire textile industry. Is he aware that one reason why that industry is being crippled is that countries which have agreed to limit their exports have already exceeded their quotas? Will he take firm and immediate action to help the Lancashire textile industry?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the MFA was negotiated by his own Government. We have taken action on a number of occasions to strengthen that agreement. We have negotiated new agreements with Cyprus and Malta. We have instituted a safeguard action against Turkey. We have used the so-called basket extractor mechanism 11 times. We monitor the agreement extremely carefully. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making much too sweeping a condemnation of it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my hon. Friend consider initiating negotiations for the 1982 agreement? These things take a long time to get going. Could not he begin it on New Year's Day?

Mr. Parkinson: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. Preliminary discussions have started, and obviously they will gain momentum, but the agreement still has over two years to run. We recognise the importance of what he says.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that many people in the textile industry have been very depressed ever since he wound up the debate on the textile industry, as they fear that they are being allowed to die a slow death? Whereas the steel industry has had its throat cut

by the Government, the textile industry is being allowed to bleed to death slowly and there is no will on the Government Benches to save it.

Mr. Parkinson: May I say to the hon. Gentleman: good question, wrong Minister. I opened the debate; I did not close it. Perhaps he should address his Question to the Minister who closed it. The multi-fibre arrangement covers 28 countries. We have agreements with eight other countries. We have a huge range of quotas and they are monitored extremely carefully. The hon. Gentleman does not help the industry by spreading the rumour—and giving substance to it—that there is no help or protection available. There is a massive machinery of protection, and it is being used.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the representations made this afternoon on behalf of the Lancashire textile industry call for a review of the operation of the MFA, and that this view is very much shared by certain countries exporting to this country which have also suffered as a result of the MFA?

Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister take the opportunity today, which he did not take when he opened the debate on the textile industry, to make it clear that the Government are committed to a renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement? All that we have had from the Minister are words about an orderly marketing arrangement. I remind him that the previous Government committed themselves, and that the Council of Ministers has committed itself. So long as the Government shilly-shally we shall not get the new MFA and our partners will not believe that we mean business.

Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten what the MFA is. It is an orderly marketing arrangement, and I have already said that there will be a successor to it. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's problem is.

FISHING VESSEL "OCEAN MONARCH"

Mr. Myles: Mr. Myles (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the feared loss of the Banff-registered fishing vessel "Ocean Monarch"BF144 in Shetland Waters and the possible tragic loss of the seven men on board.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The fishing vessel "Ocean Monarch" sailed from Peter head about noon on Thursday 13 December bound for Bressay Bank fishing grounds with a crew of seven on board.
The last known contact with the vessel was at 0420 hours on 15 December, when the "Ocean Monarch" was in VHF communication with the fishing vessel "Valkyrie". Weather conditions at the time were severe—gale force 8 increasing to storm 10. "Valkyrie's" later attempts to contact the vessel by VHF were unsuccessful. At 1028 hours on 15 December the skipper of the fishing vessel "Valkyrie" reported to Aberdeen coastguard via Wick Radio that he was concerned for the safety of the "Ocean Monarch". All shipping in the area was alerted and a sea and air radar and visual search was immediately initiated by Aberdeen coastguard with an RAF Nimrod, the fishery protection vessel HMS "Orkney" and eight fishing vessels.
During the morning of 16 December some debris, including fish boxes, was sighted by an RAF Nimrod and later, about midday, two empty life-rafts were sighted, one by the Nimrod and the other by a German vessel. Both rafts were recovered and positively identified as having come from the "Ocean Monarch". The search operation was terminated at 1430 on 16 December and I very much regret having to inform the House that the "Ocean Monarch" must now be presumed lost with all hands. My Department has commenced a preliminary inquiry into the loss of the vessel.
Through my responsibility for marine safety I have come to realise how a tragedy of this kind saddens the whole of the fishing community. I am sure that Members will wish to join with the Secretary of State for Scotland and me in expressing deepest sympathy particularly with the families and relatives of the

crew of the "Ocean Monarch", who I understand come mainly from the fishing port of Buckie, which suffered the tragic loss of the "Corinthia" in June.

Mr. Myles: I thank my hon. Friend for that statement. I will carry the sympathy of the House to the relatives in Buckie when I visit them at the end of this week.
I do not relish becoming acquainted with the procedure for private notice questions in connection with such a tragic incident. Many questions will be asked. Why is it that so many young men lose their lives in this way?
I will read out the names of those young men for the record. The skipper of the vessel was Gordon Taylor, of 138 Douglas Crescent, Buckie, aged 29 years. The mate of the vessel was John Alexander Reid, aged 32, of 20 Merson Street, Buckie. The engineer, who was well-qualified, was Walter Thain, 37 years old, of 26 Great. Western Road, Buckie. The other men were John Clark, 31 years old, of 17 Logie Avenue, Cullen Barrie Sudding, 23 years old, of 28 Rannas Place, Buckie and William Coull, 33 years old, of 42 MacKenzie Road, Buckie. Also lost was the apprentice, A Ian Sutherland, who was 17 years old, of 6 Mid Street, Buckie.
Is there any connection with the fact that this vessel had its gear towed away by the French trawler "Cap Gris Nez" a little more than a week ago—a matter that I have taken up with the Scottish Office—or with the fact that the main wireless of the "Ocean Monarch" was damaged and put out of action last week? Or is it that there is just too much pressure on fishermen, with the approach of Christmas, tight quotas, and the inadequate price of fish?

Mr. Tebbit: It would not be right for me to speculate on the possible causes of the loss of this ship, though I do not believe that the loss or impairment of the vessel's wireless could have had any part in the loss of that vessel. My hon. Friend asked why we suffer such losses. I can only say that the weather was severe in this case—indeed, it was extreme. There have been reports today of storms round the British coast, with waves up to 100 ft in height. As long as men go fishing—as they must do, and have done for many years—and have to


meet conditions such as I have described, inevitably, though sadly, we shall occasionally have these tragic loses.

Mr. John Smith: I am sure that all Opposition Members wish to associate themselves with the condolences expressed by the Minister and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles). We share the sense of loss that that community, which suffered a loss earlier this year, suffers once again. We are grateful that a preliminary inquiry has been started by the Minister's Department, but as five fishing vessels have been lost off North-East Scotland over the last 15 months, is the time not appropriate for further discussion between the Government and the fishing industry about ways in which safety might be increased?

Mr. Tebbit: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. We have constant discussions with the shipping industry as a whole on ways in which safety might be increased. If anybody in the fishing industry believes that he has any constructive ideas to put forward we shall be happy to meet that person to see what we can do to assist.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I associate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and myself with the expressions of sympathy made by the Minister. I accept that the weather was extreme, but does not the Minister think that, with the mounting toll of losses over the last year or two, there is now need for an inquiry into the rising number of inshore fishermen who are lost? I put this matter to his Department a few weeks ago.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that there is any necessity for such an inquiry at present, because I do not believe that we could do much more. At present, there is little more that we can do. Tragic though these losses are, there is no evidence that they have been increasing over the last two or three years.

Mr. Sproat: I add my sympathy to that already expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister and others. Can my hon. Friend give us his latest estimate of the effectiveness of automatic electronic beacons? What consideration he is currently giving to making these devices compulsory on vessels?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I have looked closely at these devices, their effectiveness and what snags there might be in their use. There is certainly no bar to their being carried, and in my Department we are doing what we can both to help people design such devices that are more effective and to encourage skippers to carry them.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved in Buckie and the tragic loss. It proves once more what a dangerous place the North Sea is at this time of year. Can the Minister tell us how the reporting-in procedure is operating? Are vessels regularly reporting their positions? As the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has approved an automatic beacon system, will the Minister continue his efforts to encourage skippers to carry such a system?

Mr. Tebbit: The answer to the second point is "Yes". On the question of the open line communications channel, this is working reasonably well now, and the fishing vessel "Valkyrie" made contact with Wick Radio on the open line on two occasions on 15 December on behalf of a group of vessels, including the "Ocean Monarch".

Mr. McQuarrie: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles). This vessel left Peterhead, in my constituency. The whole of the North-East has suffered great blows over the past 15 months in the loss of lives. Is it not the case that there is considerable reluctance on the part of fishermen, once they are at sea, to report back to the various radio stations? Is it not time that the Government introduced some form of compulsion to report back, rather than making it a voluntary practice? Surely that would be more satisfactory and would lead to less loss of life in such tragic circumstances.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. There is a reluctance on the part of some skippers when fishing in particularly good grounds, to give their positions over the radio. On the other hand, many companies insist that their ships report to the company, if not to the coastguard. Although I do not know very much about


this, I have had some experience, having been associated with these people in the past eight months, and I believe that compulsion would not be effective. We must resort to continuing persuasion and education. I hope that that does not sound too paternalistic, because we are dealing with a bunch of individualistic and brave men.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that those who have worked in association with the fishing industry know that all fishing ports around our coast have had their share of tragedy, with men being lost as a result of power being in the hands only of the skipper to decide whether he will continue fishing or run for shelter while there is still a chance before disaster overtakes his ship?

Mr. Tebbit: I am an enthusiast for democracy, but I do not think that doing anything to change the present circumstances, in which the skipper and no one else is the master, would lead to an improvement in safety. Indeed, I believe that it would lead to a very great loss of safety.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock).

Mr. Pollock: I wish to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy already voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The disaster occurred in a constituency neighbouring mine, and we regard ourselves as part of the same fishing community. I note the Minister's statement with interest, and ask him to convey to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force our gratitude for the way in which RAF personnel contributed with great bravery to the search and rescue operations. Without their efforts the lives of our fishermen would be more perilous than they already are.

Mr. Tebbit: I pay tribute not only to the bravery and devotion to duty of members of the RAF in these matters, but to those in the Royal Navy, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, other civil ships and their masters, and the coastguards of my Department who have contributed on countless occasions. None of these services has ever failed to do its utmost to save lives in the most difficult circumstances.

AIRPORTS POLICY

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): With permission, Mr. Speaker I will now make a statement about airports policy.
I am publishing today the reports of the Study Group on South-East Airports and the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy. I recommend these reports to the House, and I should like to thank the members of these two bodies, which include representatives of the local authorities, for their conscientious and painstaking work in preparing them.
The Government have decided not to build a major new international airport of the kind considered by the Roskill Commission report in 1971; nor do they intend to resurrect the Maplin project, even in a revised form. Instead, the Government's policy is, first, to encourage the fullest use of regional airports and, secondly, to provide additional airport capacity, as the traffic develops, based on the existing airports in the South-East, particularly Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The Government's more detailed proposals are as follows.
In the future we will adopt policies designed to maximise the potential of the English regional airports and those in Scotland and Wales, and thus shift the burden away from the London area airports.
My Department will look with particular favour upon proposals for the expansion of capacity to meet demand at airports such as the East Midlands. Birmingham and Manchester.
We propose, as opportunity arises, to negotiate new rights permitting services between overseas cities and British provincial towns. This is in accordance with the new policies contained in the Civil Aviation Bill, which is now before Parliament. On the initiative of my Department, the EEC Council of Ministers has recently invited the Commission, after consultation with member States, to present specific proposals early next year for developing routes within the Community to serve the regions.
However, even with a more effective use of regional airports the advisory committee makes clear that there is an urgent need for additional airport capacity in

South-East England. On current forecasts, taking account of the uncertainty about future oil prices and world economic growth, it is estimated that there will be a demand of between 69 million and 81 million passengers a year in London and the South-East by the late 1980s, against existing airport capacity of 50 million passengers. This leaves a large gap.
We have considered whether it would be right to ignore the likely demand so that traffic became increasingly stifled or diverted to the Continent. Such a decision, or lack of a decision, would lead to developing chaos at our existing airports. A modern Western society, heavily engaged in international trade and with a major stake in the airline business, can hardly fail to provide for consumer demand, both for leisure and business. But given the inherent uncertainty of any forecast, the solution that we need is one that meets the demand in London and the South-East only as it develops and that avoids the massive expenditure implications of developing a green field or coastal site.
At Heathrow capacity is virtually exhausted, and that is why we must continue to divert traffic to Gatwick, as already announced in my statement on 9 October. In order to provide additional capacity the Government have decided to accept the inspector's recommendation for a fourth terminal at Heathrow. The details of this decision are being announced separately today and will include certain restrictions designed to mitigate the noise nuisance to local residents. We have also given careful consideration to the possibility of constructing a fifth terminal at Heathrow, on the Perry Oaks site, in order to increase still further the capacity of that airport. However, we estimate that it would take at least 12 years to complete such a project, and it would impose added burdens on the surrounding area; these considerations have led us to the view that a fifth terminal should not be provided.
At Gatwick a public inquiry will be held next year into a proposal for a second terminal at the airport. The Government will reach their conclusions on this matter in the light of the inspector's report. We have also considered whether further capacity should be created by constructing a second runway at Gatwick but


have decided not to pursue this possibility.
At Stansted the previous Government anticipated development of the existing airport to 4 million passengers a year by the late 1980s. Stansted airport already has a suitable runway, which could carry, if necessary, many more passengers than this. There is good road access, and we believe that the addition of a new terminal building at Stansted, which could eventually handle up to 15 million passengers a year, together with the appropriate access improvements, could be carried out by the purchase of fewer than 1,500 acres of additional land and with the minimum commitment to public expenditure. The Government therefore believe that this expansion is the best way of providing extra capacity before the end of the next decade.
However, we believe that the time is long overdue for a settlement of the airports question for a much longer period, so that the demand can be met if it develops into the next century. Years of indecision, decision and counter-decision reflect no credit on this country's capacity to make difficult but necessary choices. If air traffic continues to grow at anything like the rate forecast by the advisory committee, additional capacity could be needed in the 1990s.For this reason we have given careful consideration to each of the sites examined by the study group. Airports, road and rail access, the relocation of defence establishments all use up agricultural land, affect property and cause changes to the environment. The best solution must be one that avoids any premature expenditure and leaves future Governments with the maximum degree of flexibility—dependent on the growth of demand.
Our view on the evidence so far available is that none of the green field sites meets these requirements. We recognise that Maplin has certain advantages, but the provision of additional road and rail links, the preparation of the site and the relocation of defence establishments, all of which would require a commitment of over £1 billion, involve very serious risks, which are unjustified when we cannot be certain that an airport of such a size will be needed. Moreover, an airport at Maplin could not be ready to

meet the expected shortfall in capacity in the late 1980s.
The British Airports Authority will therefore be invited to bring forward proposals for the construction of a single terminal building at Stansted based on the existing runway facilities, capable of handling about 15 million passengers a year. But it will also be invited to define and apply for the safeguarding of an additional area of up to 2,500 acres, sufficient to provide for a possible second runway and further terminal capacity should this be needed in the 1990s or beyond. Our aim would be that the owners of residential and agricultural property in this wider area should have the opportunity either of continuing to live or farm there, pending any possible requirement for this additional land, or of selling their property at an unblighted value to the BAA.
These proposals will be examined under appropriate planning procedures, which will include a wide-ranging public inquiry, and a final decision on them will then be taken. This will provide a full opportunity for all those concerned to express their views on these proposals, and for the wider social and environmental implications to be explored and assessed.
I am making arrangements for the Vote Office to make available now to hon. Members full background information.
I am sure that the House will wish to debate these issues as soon as hon. Members have had a reasonable time to consider the reports and the Government's conclusions. I have, therefore, asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make provision for a debate after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that for some days now reports about his proposals have appeared in the newspapers? Indeed, as liable forecasts have appeared in the it turns out, prior to last weekend re-newspapers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a desirable way in which Government policy should be announced to Parliament? Has his Department given any briefing to the press prior to the announcement being made to the House?
As, at least to some extent, the Government appear to be basing their


decision on the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, which, as I understand it, are now being made available in the Vote Office, the House will no doubt wish to study those reports before reaching any final decisions on these matters. In that context, I welcome the debate that has been promised will take place after the Christmas Recess.
The Secretary of State referred to the development of regional airports. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish to see greater use made of some of the excellent airports that have been developed out with the South-East corner of the United Kingdom. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us precisely what he proposes in that regard? In particular, are there any proposals to develop regional airports, and airports in Scotland and Wales, beyond those that were announced by the previous Government in the White Paper of February 1978? The right hon. Gentleman also referred to licensing policy. Is it not the case that there is not very much in the Civil Aviation Bill to encourage the development of regional airports, in that it depends entirely upon the CAA for the civil aviation policy that will be adopted, and it looks as though the Government have retreated from formulating policy in that area?
The statement contains only a fleeting reference to Scottish airports. In view of the concern expressed in many quarters about the future of Prestwick international airport, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something about the factors that have given rise to that concern. What is the Government's intention with regard to the long-term future of Prestwick?
With regard to Stansted, does the Secretary of State's decision mean that all future development, beyond the first terminal to be built at Stansted, will be located in the Stansted area? Does it mean that in addition to development at Stansted increasing capacity to 15 million passengers a year, it is likely to reach a much higher figure, in the light of future developments? As there are various forms of planning inquiries, what kind of planning inquiry will be used? Will that inquiry be asked to make recommendations about the two phases of the proposal—that is, the proposal for up to 15

million passengers a year and at the same time a decision on the wider and more ambitious plans for Stansted?

Mr. Nott: I shall try to answer each of those points in turn, but it may take me a few moments to do so. It goes without saying that I am not in favour of leaks. However, the two study groups included representatives of eight or nine outside bodies who, of course, would have consulted their constituent bodies, so that several hundred people would have seen the draft of the reports in the past few weeks. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that some of the contents have found their way into the press. My Department released these two reports to the press this morning. We have given no briefing to the press prior to this morning, when these reports went out for the first time.
A number of new aspects to the question of regional airports have arisen since the previous Government were in office. First, I think that we have seen most favourable developments within the community following the council meeting attended by my hon. Friend, to which I referred in my statement. I think that there is a genuine desire to increase services between provincial cities in this country and cities and towns within Europe. We are pursing that vigorously.
Secondly, it is proposed in the Civil Aviation Bill that there should be a specific clause requiring the CAA to give account to the needs of regional airports. I think that I am right in saying that previously this was left to ministerial guidance. We intend to put that into an Act. A number of public inquiries are going on, and some are mooted, into the questions of additional terminal capacity and greater runway capacity at regional airports. At present, rights for about 1,500 routes have already been negotiated for services between the regions and overseas cities. We want the demand to build up so that the airlines will make full use of those rights that we have already negotiated.
I turn finally to the question of Stansted.

Mr. John Smith: What about Prestwick?

Mr. Nott: I am aware that there is concern in Scotland about the proposals of British Airways to transfer its long


haul services from Prestwick to Glasgow. If other transatlantic operators followed suit it would lead to the closure of Prestwick, and demand for the expansion of facilities at Glasgow and Edinburgh would certainly build up. My hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are due to meet the chairmen of British Airways and the British Airports Authority this week to discuss the implications of such a step, and the Government have reached no decision on the issues involved.
As to Stansted and the public inquiry, it will, of course, be up to the inspector to decide precisely how the inquiry takes place. Our view is that the British Airports Authority might be invited to apply for detailed planning permission for the building of the additional terminal based upon the existing runway and for the purchase of an additional 1,500 acres of agricultural land. In addition, it will be invited to apply for outline planning permission to safeguard the wider area of about 2,500 acres in case that additional second runway should be needed in the 1990s or in the years approaching 2000. That is something that we cannot possibly predict now. There would be detailed permission for the new terminal, and outline planning would be applied for for the wider area.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Instead of saying "Order", I nearly said "Help". I propose to call first those hon. Members who had a question on the Order Paper but were asked by the Minister and by myself to wait.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not today's announcement tantamount to saying that the case for a third London airport is not proven, because of the uncertainty of future passenger demand? Is the seemingly high figure of 15 million passengers, as a first stage at Stansted, negotiable? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of his statement he expects that the planning blight on the five sites—apart from Stansted—outlined by the advisory group in May, will now cease to afflict those sites?

Mr. Nott: I was anxious to give early expression to the Government's views because of the blight that exists on so

many sites resulting from a perfectly proper set of procedures that were proposed by the previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) is right. We do not, consider that the case has been proved for a major new international airport. The Government are therefore looking towards the expansion of existing facilities, rather than towards building a major new international airport. That is why we are adopting this flexible approach.

Mr. Madel: I welcome that part of my right hon. Friend's statement that states that for the second time in eight years Cublington has been saved from the threat of becoming the third London airport. When considering the proposed alterations to Stansted, will he bear in mind that any alteration must be limited by the proximity of Luton airport, because there is not enough air space to go round?

Mr. Nott: Luton will continue as at present, because it is an important airport, providing useful services. The traffic at Stansted would have to grow to a considerable level before any problems of air traffic control arose for Luton. I assure my hon. Friend that Luton will continue as it is. I cannot foresee what air traffic problems may arise if traffic at Stansted builds up to a considerable amount in future. However, that is a long way ahead.

Mr. Speaker: In order to solve any problem, I shall allow questions to be asked until 4.30 pm. The number of hon. Members called will depend on how short the questions are.

Mr. Jay: Is the Secretary of State aware that the right solution to the main problem is, as it always has been, a gradual expansion of Gatwick and Stansted? Will the Government, having made a decision, have the courage—unlike some other Governments—to stick to it?

Mr. Nott: I agree that the answer is a gradual expansion in order to provide facilities to meet demand as it develops. That is why we intend, in the foreseeable future, to use the existing runway at Stansted. Gat wick now handles approximately 8 million passengers. Inevitably, that number will build up to 16 million passengers. I do not wish to go into further


details, as a public inquiry is due to consider the wider question of a second terminal at Gatwick next year. I do not want to prejudge the inspector's recommendation.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend's words and I am particularly pleased to hear his reassurance about the second runway. Bearing in mind that he proposes to allow a substantial expansion at Heathrow and Stansted, and to encourage the expansion of regional airports, why do we need a public inquiry to decide whether Gatwick should go beyond 16 million? That figure virtually doubles Gatwick's present passenger handling capacity and the BAA's proposals will treble Gatwick to the size of Heathrow airport. Should my right hon. Friend not tell us, either today or within the next few weeks, that that is not on from an environmental point of view, or from the point of view of the airlines?

Mr. Nott: I know my hon. Friend's views and I understand his point about Gatwick. A public inquiry is being held, because that is the most democratic way of hearing objections that will undoubtedly arise about the building of a second terminal at Gatwick. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to represent the views of his constituents, and all those living in the Gatwick area, when that public inquiry takes place.
I fear that there will be considerable problems from 1981–82 until the fourth terminal at Heathrow comes into operation in 1985. There is no way in which that demand can be met unless Gatwick is allowed to take the additional traffic. Whether it should go beyond 16 million passengers is a matter for the public inquiry, and all views will be heard.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal Party supports the accent that he has put on the need to make greater use of our regional airports? There are other airports that are not mentioned in his statement that could be looked at. We also support the Government's decision that there must be extra capacity in the South-East and that Stansted appears to be the most logical choice. Will he assure us that if Stansted—expands, public transport to Stansted—particularly, perhaps, a rail link from Bishop's Stortford—will be given the

utmost priority at an early stage of development?

Mr. Nott: Yes. Some work will need to be done on the road and rail links to Stansted. We estimate that about £12 million will provide a sufficient amount to link the M11 with Stansted. We foresee that the existing Liverpool Street to Bishop's Stortford line will provide the rail link, although subsequently a rail line going right into the airport may be needed. That line would come off the existing main railway line just north of Bishop's Stortford. In due course consideration will have to be given to extending a link from the main railway line into the airport, and we estimate that that would cost about £85 million.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will regard the package announced today as having expediency written all over it? Is it not transparently obvious that the Government's decision means that if demand increases Stansted will, in the end, become the third London airport? Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the cost estimated in the reports published today is upwards of £1 billion, especially if the infrastructure of two new towns is taken into account?

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend must feel very strongly about our choice of developing Stansted. I appreciate that he must be disappointed with the Government's views. However, it is a question not of expediency but of providing capacity to meet the demand as it develops. There is an existing runway at Stansted, which should be used to the full. There is no question of considering a second runway at Stansted, unless traffic in the 1990s makes it desirable. The new terminal and the total cost of that phase of Stansted's development can be met out of the existing self-financing revenues of the British Airports Authority. We do not anticipate that any taxpayers' funds will be required in addition to the money that the BAA will generate from additional revenue arising from that terminal. Therefore the project is not expensive.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Secretary of State aware that serious environmental problems exist? By increasing the load on the London airports he is making life almost impossible for those who live beneath the flight paths. Is the Secretary


of State aware that the Merseyside metropolitan county council has proposed to his Department the upgrading of Liverpool airport? Why not use some of the provincial airports and thereby share the ensuing environmental problems over the whole country?

Mr. Nott: First, I am aware of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed in some quarters about Liverpool's categorisation as a local airport. We have made it clear that we shall interpret flexibly the categorisation of airports that we inherited from the previous Government—a policy with which we do not disagree. I have no doubt that it must be our first priority to develop a full range of air services from Manchester, but we have a perfectly flexible attitude to the development of Liverpool, and as demand builds up there it can play a greater role.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about environmental problems. If one must make a choice on this very difficult series of issues, one cannot but be aware of the environmental problems, which arise wherever one seeks to meet the extra demand. However, when this country has airline revenues of £2,000 million a year, when 70,000 or so people work in the airline business, when 18 per cent. of the country's trade, by value, goes through our airports, and when we are a major trading nation, I just do not believe that we can say that we shall not meet the demand. This is a growth industry. We have to meet the demand. I accept that it has environmental consequences, which make me no happier than they make the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I, for one, am delighted with this sensible and realistic decision, and that since our constituents have lain far too long under the shadow of the Maplin proposal I am sure that it will also be warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and for South end, East (Sir S. McAdden)?
Will my right hon. Friend carry his realism a little further? As a very high proportion of the air traffic from southeastern airports is short-haul to the Continent, will he give an indication that he is ready to give encouragement to the early provision by private enterprise, in

this country and in France, of a Channel tunnel?

Mr. Nott: I have always been interested in and attracted to the idea of a Channel tunnel. The traffic forecasts that we have taken into account in coming to these views assumed the building of a single-track rail-only link, now under consideration. This was assumed—it is embodied in the forecasts of traffic—to take 6 million passengers in its first year of operation—that is 1988—and 8 million by the end of the century. Diversion was considered to be mainly from shipping services, and the forecasters say that the loss to air services would be well below one year's growth, so that even with the Channel tunnel it really would not affect the need for some expansion of capacity in the London and South-East airports. But certainly I am an enthusiast, too, although the Government have not yet, I think, pronounced a policy on this subject.

Mr. Palmer: In his reference to the development of regional airports, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Birmingham but omitted Bristol, Lulsgate, which is within easy reach of London by road and by rail, and where the Bristol corporation is now actively considering an extension of the runway.

Mr. Nott: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. If I had mentioned every regional airport by name my statement would still be continuing. I am a West Country Member of Parliament, and I am interested in the scope for the development of Bristol. The present capacity of Bristol is 350,000, and in 1978 terminal passengers amounted to 230,000, so there is scope for development at Bristol. It would require considerable expenditure on new terminal facilities and some extension of the runway. Given the modern facilities available at Cardiff and the ease of access to the London area, I do not foresee major developments at the hon. Gentleman's airport, but if he wishes to persuade his local authority to make approaches to us about additional runway capacity and additional terminals, I am sure that we should be prepared to look at them sympathetically.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that successive Governments have merely responded to, rather than sought


to act to influence, the patterns set by the travel industry, and that, particularly, the creation of part charters has put enormous pressure on south-eastern airports? It is cheaper to bring people down by coach from Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham. Is it not rather silly in the national interest to consider spending further huge sums of money in South-East England in order to make it cheaper to sell package tours from Newcastle or Birmingham to Ibiza, via London, when they should be flying from the regional airports? Will my right hon. Friend consider again banning charter and part-charter flights from Heathrow and Gatwick?

Mr. Nott: We are doing our very best to encourage charter flights direct from the regions to overseas cities. The more we can persuade airlines and the travel industry to operate direct flights from the regions to overseas holiday areas the happier we shall be. But the Government cannot force the travel industry to fly from airports that it does not wish to fly from.

Mr. Adley: They could be banned.

Mr. Nott: I do not think that my hon. Friends are really asking the Government to impose mandatory sanctions against the travel industry. But when there is so much uncertainty about the growth in tourism, about world growth, about international travel and about oil prices, it must be right not to build an enormous expensive airport at a coastal site. It must be right to respond to demand as it is created. I think that this is the correct policy and not the wrong one.

Mr. Sandelson: Is the Minister aware that his statement and his decision to abandon thoughts of a fifth terminal at Heathrow will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and by all the residents in the borough of Hillingdon? Does he take account of the need for developing the road infrastructure throughout the area, even with the construction of a fourth terminal? Will he bear in mind the need for Government finance and funding for the Hayes bypass scheme?

Mr. Nott: I seem to be getting a warmer welcome from Opposition Members than I am getting from many of my hon. Friends, but that is not entirely unexpected.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be asking an announcement today about the M25. I cannot comment on the particular road that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am not personally very knowledgeable about the road network at Hayes. However, if the hon. Gentleman cares to address these questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to respond to him. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the fact that we shall not be building a fifth terminal at Heathrow.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party showed a reckless disregard for the quality of life and for the environment of people living around Heathrow when in 1974 they combined to drop the proposal for a coastal airport at Maplin, which could have been in operation by 1981 or 1982, so that we would not now have needed a fourth terminal at Heathrow? What hope can my right hon. Friend offer for people suffering from aircraft noise in the Heathrow area?

Mr. Nott: In the Heathrow area, noise affects about 1½ million people. We estimate that the increased use of the single runway at Stansted will affect only about 17,000 people. That is much too high a figure, but I am afraid that these are the facts of life. In the Heathrow area about 1½ million are affected by the noise.
Therefore, there are a number of things that I can say to my hon. Friend. First, we are moving speedily to the phasing out of noisy aircraft. We are going rather faster than the rest of the Community, but the Community now has at least agreed a date.
Secondly, I hope to bring forward—I am not sure whether I shall bring them forward, or whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will do so—orders to improve our noise insulation arrangements. They will be coming forward.
There are a number of other matters that we can consider at Heathrow. We have put some restrictions on noise with regard to the use of the fourth terminal. My hon. Friend will learn more about them later today.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the manner in which


he has ridden roughshod over the recommendations of the Roskill Commission on Stansted will be seen as a complete travesty of democracy by everyone who lives in the area? According to the Energy Conservation Council, the amount of fuel to be used for aviation purposes by the year 2000 will be two and a half times the present level and 90 per cent. of journeys will be for leisure purposes. Therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a ceiling should be set for the maximum use of Stansted? Other parts of the country have already been destroyed through lack of planning and it would be wrong to destroy this area as well.

Mr. Nott: The proposal for greater use of the existing runway at Stansted bears no relation to what the Roskill Commission considered, which was a four-runway airport, on the basis of much noisier aircraft. I have placed some background briefing in the Vote Office, which the hon. Gentleman can see and which sets out the noise contours as we think they would have been on the basis of the Roskill report and on the basis of the present arrangements. We are considering use of an existing runway, and that proposal bears no resemblance to Roskill. I hope also that there will be jobs available for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We have the demand, and we have to meet it. The Government believe that it is best to meet it while we can on existing runways, and that is what we are doing at Stansted.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I welcome decentralisation, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate the fact that my welcome does not extend to his U-turn on the main issue? Would it not have been preferable to follow his predecessor in the Heath Administration and conclude that if, in principle, a substantial increase of airport facilities is required in the South-East, having regard to such things as world recession and escalating oil prices, the airport should be placed on the coast, where economic advantages could be combined with imaginative development? That would also overcome the environmental disadvantages so powerfully and authoritatively expressed by Professor Sir Colin Buchanan, who is one of the most eminent town planners of the day. Will my right hon. Friend think again before embarking on a course of

action in regard to Stansted that is wholly inconsistent with good planning principles and would cause what the professor called a gross intrusion into a desirable inland tract?

Mr. Nott: I followed the views of Professor Buchanan closely, and particularly so in the past few months. I believe that I correctly quote him when I say that he thinks that the best way of dealing with this problem is to meet the demand as it develops. I am not for one moment saying that Professor Buchanan would choose a build-up of traffic on the existing runway at Stansted—I do not want to put those words in his mouth—but his general view is that we should meet the demand as it develops, which is what I am attempting to do.
Our estimate—I do not think that it is far wrong—is that it would take 17 years to build a major new international airport at Maplin. I went into the matter with great care. The present problem is that we still do not have the remotest idead where we can put the Ministry of Defence establishment at Shoeburyness. We originally tried to get it into Wales, but that proposal was rejected by the planning inspector. We just do not know where the defence establishment will go, but wherever it goes it will cause major concern for the environment.
Secondly, such a proposal would require about 40 miles of new road and rail links through Essex, which would cause great environmental distress. The lead time makes it now impossible and the costs are simply huge. One could not contemplate putting a single runway at Maplin. It would have to be a two-runway airport, and we simply do not know that the demand is there for a two-runway airport.
I, too, am unhappy about taking up 1,500 acres of agricultural land at Stansted, but there is also grade I land at Maplin, which would have to go. Comparing the environmental problems in both places, I believe that the problems of Maplin are much greater than the proposal to use the existing single runway at Stansted.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister's proposals to encourage more international flights from Manchester will be greatly welcomed by the airport authority, but what level of expansion is he looking for


there? It will be our foremost airport outside London over the next 10 years. What action will he take to help bring about such expansion?

Mr. Nott: Manchester at present has a capacity for 6 million passengers, and in 1978 only 3,400,000 passengers used the airport. It was designated by the previous Government as a category A airport, and it is the policy of this Government to encourage more international flights from Manchester to serve the whole area. We do not see any obstacles to its speedier growth, but we need more demand for Manchester airport, which means negotiating more services. We should like to see Manchester grow, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman would.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the people of Liverpool will be disappointed that he has not announced a new terminal for Speke airport? We have two of the safest and best runways in the country and there are no environmental problems, because take-off and landing are over the Mersey. There is enough land for a free port and a third or fourth terminal without taking agricultural land.

Mr. Nott: At present, about half the capacity of Liverpool airport is being used. It has a capacity for 700,000 passengers and in 1978 only 300,000 passed through there. If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) and other of my hon. Friends can encourage more traffic out of Liverpool, I shall be happy sympathetically to consider expansion. However, while its existing facilities are not fully used, it is hardly the occasion to agree more expenditure. We shall do so as soon as there is a justification.

Mr. Dalyell: If Prestwick closes, to which airports will aircraft be diverted if fog suddenly blankets the North of England and Scotland?

Mr. Nott: It is much too soon to make such hypothetical assumptions. I know that the hon. Gentleman was here during questions, but before he came back into the Chamber—

Mr. Dalyell: I heard the answer, but ministerial meetings do not disperse fog.

Mr. Nott: Glimpses of the truth are seldom thrown across the Floor of the

House in such an accurate way. I am conscious of the problems at Prestwick. We are aware of British Airways proposals and will look into them as soon as we can.

Mr. Bright: Luton corporation has just announced a new £6 million terminal, which will provide 6,500 jobs and make a profit of £1½ million. Is it therefore possible to give Luton some assurance that it will be able to keep its existing capacity and that the lucrative charter trade that it has built up will not be creamed off by Stansted?

Mr. Nott: At present Luton has a capacity for 3 million passengers, and in 1978 2,100,000 passed through, so there is scope for additional traffic. We do not intend to see the services at Luton diminished, but it is only right to tell my hon. Friend that if Stansted built up to many millions of passengers air traffic control problems might arise. In the foreseeable future such problems will not arise. We are happy for Luton to go on expanding its facilities.

Mr. Urwin: Will the Minister accept my firm assurance of support for much of what has been said about placing greater accent on regional airports—if only in order to remove some of the great congestion and noise nuisance in Heathrow and Gatwick? However, will the Minister pay much more attention to the problems of Newcastle and Teeside airports? In response to a question from one of his hon. Friends, let me tell the Minister that we in the North of England would welcome greater investment in Tyneside and Teeside, and the jobs that would go with that.

Mr. Nott: Newcastle airport has a present capacity of 1½ million passengers. Over 700,000 passengers used the airport in 1978. I confirm Newcastle's position as the regional airport for the North-East. The airport authority has come forward with plans to expand the terminal's facilities and we are giving sympathic consideration to the proposal. I am aware of the dissatisfaction that is felt on Teeside about its categorisation as a local airport. While Newcastle develops as the major airport of the North-East we shall not interfere with that development. At the same time we shall not stifle any demand on Teeside.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the fact that, inevitably, the answers have been longer than I expected, I will call four more Conservative Members to try to retain the balance—as I often do, in the same way, for Opposition Members.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement is one of those in which a Minister can never win? Whatever the decision, there is bound to be criticism. He deserves congratulations for being willing to grasp the nettle and come to a decision rather than pussyfoot about. Will he confirm that, when his Department receives applications for expansion or improvement of regional airports that have been held up waiting for his statement, the authorities can expect to have a rapid answer in order to proceed to meet the requirements that he is setting on regional airports?

Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. A friend is always welcome in these circumstances. My Department hopes to discuss the matter with representatives of the local airport authorities in the new year, with a view to agreeing new arrangements that will come into effect in April 1981. There is a need to discuss the arrangements of regional airports in the future with regard to their financial structure, and we shall be doing so shortly.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has another friend? I congratulate him on taking a firm decision on a matter about which there has been dithering for far too long. Did I understand him to say, in answer to an earlier question, that there is to be more than one inquiry at Stansted? In any event, will he ensure, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, that the planning procedures and the public inquiries are not abused as excuses for delay? That will only increase uncertainty and anxiety among those who live close by.

Mr. Nott: We will ensure that those living in the area will have sufficient time to prepare their case. Subject to that, my right hon. Friend and I would like the inquiry to take place as soon as possible. There will be only one wide-ranging inquiry, in which all views can be heard.

Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's desire to settle the

matter once and for all. Will he reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)? Without a certain amount of direction, the operators will always continue to use London. London will continue to be swamped, and it will become worse than it is now.

Mr. Nott: I have taken note of that point and, of course, I will look into it. About 78 per cent. of all people going in and out of the country have their destination or source in South-East England. An overwhelming proportion of those travelling in and out of the country derive from the South-East. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I want to see more use made of the regional airports by the charter operators.

Mr Eldon Griffiths: As one who announced on behalf of the Government of which my right hon. Friend was a member—certainly a supporter of the decision—that Stansted was the wrong answer and Maplin was the right answer, may I, with great respect and affection, counsel my right hon. Friend not to assume too lightly that the Government will necessarily get their way in this matter? Why is it better, in an island, to put aeroplanes down over the homes and the land of the people, instead of over the sea?

Mr. Nott: I answered that point earlier. I do not know whether the Government will get their way, but that is not the spirit in which I have entered into the matter. I have offered a wide-ranging public inquiry, and we will see what the inspector recommends. When my hon. Friend was in the Department of the Environment he did not propose or even consider the policy that I am now proposing.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Yes, I did.

Mr. Nott: If he did, the proposal of the previous Government—of which we were both members—was for a major international airport at Maplin. That is not what I am proposing for Stanstead. I propose the building of a new terminal to make full use of the existing runway. That is quite a different policy from the one that was considered in the early 1970s.
Having looked into the matter as objectively as I can, I believe that the environmental consequences of finding somewhere else for the Ministry of Defence installations would be too great. The previous Conservative Government did not succeed in that matter because the public inquiry in Wales turned down the proposal that the defence installations should be sited in Wales. When I consider the 65 kilometres or 40 miles—askprefer to describe it—of road and railway that would be required, and all the other environmental problems that would arise at Maplin, given that we do not know whether we want a two-runway airport and the fact that it would cost £1,000 million of public expenditure—whereas my proposals can be financed from the resources of the British Airports Authority without any accesss to the taxpayer—I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his view. Also, I will look again at mine.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TERRORIST ACTIVITIES)

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the murder by the Irish Republican Army of five soldiers and one ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment in Ulster yesterday.
The peace and calm of the Ulster Sabbath day was rudely shattered yesterday by three blood-curdling attacks by the IRA upon the security forces. Along the main road leading from Dungannon via Ballygawley towards Omagh and Inniskillen the IRA set up a bomb under a culvert. By remote control, they detonated that explosive of about 600 to 1,000 lbs and four gallant soldiers were done brutally to death.
I should like to put those soldiers' names on the record today, as I feel that the people of Northern Ireland would like on the record their acknowledgment of the gallantry of those four men. Gunner William John Beck was 23 and came from Belfast. The three others were from England: Lance Bombadier Keith Charles Richards, aged 22, Gunner Simon Peter Evans, aged 19, and Gunner Allan

David Ayrton, aged 21. The tragedy of the killing is that the IRA is now able to set up on a main public highway an explosive device, survey that road from afar, and then carry out such a killing.
I said in the House on Tuesday that I believed that the security policy of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in shreds. I regret that the House has had a demonstration of that through these killings. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be here, because he is visiting the site. I appreciate that. I put that firmly on the record.
There was another killing yesterday, on the Newtownhamilton-Dundalk road, where a young soldier, whose name has not yet been released, a member of the 2nd Parachute Regiment, was killed by a booby trap. Then in the town of Omagh in the county of Tyrone, an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, James Fowler, was brutally gunned down in the presence of his young son, aged 13.
The House should remember that there have been 120 killings so far this year in Northern Ireland. Of those victims, 71 have been members of the security forces.
When I came into the Chamber today, I was called out to take a telephone call from home and was told the tragic news of another killing of a prison officer—a carbon copy of a killing that took place a few weeks ago in the same circumstances on the steps of the same club.
Surely the time has come when the House and the Government must do something about the security situation. Instead of having reaction to such terrible incidents, the House should see that the security forces come off the defensive and go on the offensive, as they did in London in the recent rounding up of well-known terrorists. I trust that the action taken in this city will be taken across the whole Province, especially in the Republican ghettos.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely:
the murder by the IRA of five soldiers and one ex-member of the UDR in Ulster yesterday.


I listened, as the House did, with deep concern to the application that the hon. Gentleman made relating to the continuing toll in Ulster. The House knows that my responsibilities are very limited in this regard. Whether the matter should be debated is not for me. The limit of my responsibilities and power is merely whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow. The House has also instructed me to give no reasons for my decision.
After giving very careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman made, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House appreciates your problems in ruling on such a Standing Order No. 9 application and on any private notice question on such a matter. However, I am sure that the House is well aware of the feelings about such horrific events and I hope that it will be possible for the Government to make a statement on the subject tomorrow.
I realise that it is difficult to distinguish between one event and another, but these are certainly extremely horrific events, and I think that a statement should be made to the House as soon as the Government are in a position to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's words will have been heard by the Government. As the House knows, it is not for me to decide whether a matter ought to be debated, except within the narrow limits to which I have already referred.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I should tell the House that I propose to apply the 10-minute rule between 7 o'clock and 10 minutes to 9 o'clock.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I think that it would be true to say that no subject has occupied the House more in the past 15 years than industrial relations. It would perhaps be wise at the start of a further period of debate to recognise that none of us has been successful, that during that period our industrial performance has declined and that the period when most of us have been in the House has been one for our country of which none of us can be particularly proud. Before fierce argument breaks out, it may be as well that we recognise our lack of success and approach our debates, as I certainly do, with some humility and in a desire for consensus.
No subject is more central to our problems and few subjects are as important in determining the future of our society. The incomes policies of the early 1960s, the statutory policies of 1966 and 1972, "In Place of Strife" in 1969, the Industrial Relations Act 1971, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Acts of 1974 and 1976, and the Employment Protection Act 1975 have all attempted to tackle the problem, and any Minister who presents proposals to change the law, as I do today, must be mindful of that record.
I do not believe, as some do, that the lessons of the past 15 years are entirely negative or that the only thing to do is to do nothing. That is a counsel of despair and I reject it. It is abundantly clear that some changes in the law are essential. Recent events have amply borne out that fact. I shall have more to say about the detailed changes to the law when I discuss individual clauses of the Bill.
Before I do so, I want to say a few words about the spirit and the manner in which the Government have approached their task. I think that it is particularly important that our reasoning should be understood by the House and, through the House, by industry, people at work and the nation as a whole.
Our approach is essentially a pragmatic one. We are not in the business of change for change's sake. In drawing up our proposals, we have drawn on experience—the experience of how the present law is working and the experience of those working in and close to industry. We have proceeded through wide and intensive consultations. Every proposal in the Bill was set out in the working papers that I have published in the months since the election.
In many cases, we have put forward a number of options for consideration. We have listened carefully to all the views put to us. We have made changes as a result. It has been a demonstration of open government—of a Government ready to listen, to learn and to try to meet, as far as possible, the many conflicting views of those with whom we have consulted.
But let no one think that, because we have sought to do what is practical, there is no issue of principle at stake. On the contrary, the Government believe that fundamental matters of principle are very much at stake.
One principle is to ensure that the rights of the individual are respected and upheld, at the place of work as in every other facet of our lives. That has been our guiding principle. I believe that it is one which will receive support from both sides of the House. But the rights of the individual as an individual need to be balanced by the right of individuals to act together. I put the Government position on the record in the debate on the Address in May. I think that it bears repeating. I said:
The law should always give full recognition to the inherent weakness of the individual worker vis-a-vis his employer, to the need for him to be organised in a union, and to the need for his union to have such exceptional liberties as may be necessary to redress the balance. That is fundamental, but, having accepted that, the very nature of privilege is that it must always be restricted to what is necessary and never go beyond that"—

[Official Report, 21 May 1979; vol. 967, c. 824.]
Let me reaffirm that statement today. Let me reiterate that we have sought a balance. I do not believe that what we have witnessed in the last 20 years has been a balance. It is that which has worried successive Governments and this House throughout the whole of this unsettled period. The changes we propose are limited to those where experience has shown that the law is not working well, where privilege is being abused and suffering results, where the creation of new jobs is being inhibited by fear of the present law and what it means. Our proposals do not change the need for bargainers to behave sensibly, nor do they in any way absolve those who lead them from their responsibility of providing practical voluntary guidance on the use of the powerful weapons in their bargaining armoury.
Our proposals are designed to improve industrial relations, but to do so by working with the grain rather than against it. So let no one use them as an excuse for abandoning the search for the good voluntary procedures which are the best protection against tough laws.
These proposals have the support of the nation—their support is as strong among trade unionists as it is in the rest of the community. They command a majority, as far as one can understand, even among trade unionists who vote for the Labour Party. In no way has the support diminished with the passage of time. It is against this background that I will briefly deal with individual clauses.
Clause 1 deals with funds for ballots. It follows closely an early-day motion put down in the last Parliament. That read:
That this House in the interest of maximum democratic participation urges the Government to introduce legislation to ensure the provision of financial aid for postal ballots in trade union elections.
That was not a Conservative motion, but a Back-Bench Labour one. Would all the hon. Members who signed thatmotion—and five of the main signatories are still Members of this House—vote against that tonight? Even if they disagree with the rest of the Bill, one would have thought that a reasoned amendment would have been a more likely stance for the Opposition to adopt.
The scheme would be administered by the Certification Officer. It will be introduced by regulation subject to parliamentary approval and will cover postal ballots held for purposes of the kind referred to in clause 1(3): the calling or ending of strikes; elections to management committees of trades unions and to union offices; amendments to rules; and trade union amalgamations and transfers.
The clause does not make ballots compulsory, although many people believe it should. Nor does it involve interference with the internal affairs of trade unions. It will not lead to the immediate adoption of secret ballots by all trade unions. But it will remove financial obstacles to the holding of postal ballots. It will be for union members who want more ballots to press their leadership to accept this offer. I hope that hon. Members will do the same.
Clause 2 contains the power to publish codes of practice for the improvement of industrial relations. We need both the law and guidance on best practice, and codes will help achieve this. I intend to use this power to produce a code on the closed shop. If no other authoritative, comprehensive and effective guidance is available, I shall produce a code on picketing. The clause requires me to consult ACAS and other interested organisations, and to lay any code before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
I turn now to the closed shop provisions. What we are seeking to do here is to give a right to compensation for unfair dismissal within a closed shop situation for people who are employees at the time the agreement comes in, for employees who have deeply held personal conviction against belonging to a particular union or any union, and to employees who, if they lose their union card, can lose their job.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I apologise for coming in slightly late on the question of the ballot, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will go back a little and give an indication of the extent to which a trade union will be accountable to the Government, who will obviously be supplying the money, in relation to such ballots.

Mr. Prior: We shall leave this matter almost entirely to the Certification

Officer, who will have to satisfy himself that the election has been held in accordance with union rules. Provided that he is so satisfied, there is no question of the Government becoming involved in any way. The Certification Officer will then have power to demand from the Government the cash required for financing the ballot accordingly. So we have done all that we can to keep this matter away from the Government, and I believe that that would meet the hon. Gentleman's desires.
I return to the question of the closed shop. We are concerned to deal partly with the abuses that have arisen such as in the disgraceful British Rail case and partly with fear—the fear of losing a union card. We do not say that a man cannot lose his job, but we create a deterrent to employers and unions who set up agreements which do not conform to good practice.
I know that some of my hon. Friends would have preferred us to go further on the closed shop and to seek to outlaw it. But I must tell them that that was the approach tried in 1971, and it simply did not work. What we are doing in the Bill is to provide the individual with effective safeguards; and we are proposing much more specific arrangements for the drawing up of any new closed shop agreement. A recent study published by my Department has shown that many new closed shops accord with best practice. They allow exemptions for the long-serving worker and those who object on grounds of conscience. We are concerned to see that the law underpins that good practice and provides a remedy in those cases—I hope few—where it is not followed.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the European Court's ruling over the weekend about the railwaymen who lost their jobs because of the closed shop agreement? In view of that court ruling that they were illegally dismissed, will the Bill make the change required to give them back their jobs?

Mr. Prior: The court has given no ruling over the weekend. When it does give a ruling, we shall certainly abide by it, but I must tell my hon. Friend that we believe that the measures that we are taking in the Bill would certainly have prevented the sort of situation which made


the three men concerned go to the court in the first place. That was the gist of the message that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General took to Strasbourg when he gave evidence on behalf of the Government in, I think, June or July.
Clauses 3 and 4 provide a right for someone who is employed or seeking employment where there is a closed shop not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from a trade union, and to get equitable compensation if he is.
Clause 6 makes it possible for existing employees and for those who object to union membership on grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction to claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed when a closed shop is established. In the case of new closed shops, a person will be able to claim unfair dismissal if the closed shop agreement was not approved in a ballot in which at least 80 per cent. of the employees voted in favour;
Clause 9 will enable an employer to make a trade union a party in unfair dismissal proceedings, where that union puts pressure on the employer to dismiss a non-union employee.
I wish to say a few words about the closed shop and the press. In 1976 the House was worried about the effect that a closed shop could have on the journalist's freedom to report whatever and wherever he liked, to have access to publish and to be free to write free from interference by his union should it attempt to dictate policy. With this in mind, a press charter was suggested. The previous Government were not able to bring one forward for discussion by the House.
The proposals on the closed shop in the Bill are particularly relevant to the issue of press freedom. We intend to provide specific guidance on the subject in the code to ensure that press freedom is not infringed. That seems a better way to proceed, and clause 16 of the Bill includes a power to repeal the relevant section of the 1976 Act. I would not intend to use the power of repeal until those in the industry have had the opportunity of seeing our draft code. If there was still a strong desire for a charter, and a real possibility of reaching agreement on its terms, we would, of course,

be prepared to reconsider any abolition of the charter itself.
Clauses 5, 7 and 8 amend the law on unfair dismissal. They have the purpose of reducing the burden imposed on employers, especially small employers. This burden, perceived and real, has been a deterrent to the employment of more people. They would require an industrial tribunal to take account of the size and administrative resources of a firm in deciding the fairness or unfairness of a dismissal. They would also exempt new firms, with fewer than 20 employees, from the unfair dismissal provisions for the first two years after they take on their first employee.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, if the Bill becomes law, all the small businesses will take on immediately at least one, two, or three workers and so help to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Prior: I cannot give that assurance. I might be able to give the hon. Gentleman another assurance, that it will not be possible for small employers any longer to argue that the Employment Protection Act is a deterrent to the employment of labour.
Clauses 10 and 11 change the requirements on notification of intention to take maternity leave and to return to a job afterwards. They relieve an employer with five or fewer employees of his obligation to reinstate an employee after maternity leave, but the employer will have to show that it is not reasonably practicable for him to do so. They also enable all employers to offer suitable alternative employment, where it is not practicable to offer the employee her old job back.
Clause 14 contains our proposals for secondary picketing. Its aim is to protect employers and employees who find their livelihood and jobs threatened by picketing in support of a dispute in which they have no part and no access to the means of ending it. After the events of last winter, no one can doubt that a change in the law is needed to provide such protection. As The Sunday Times said yesterday:
Unions are no longer fledgling creatures in need of special protection. It is their casual victims who need protection now.


In the road haulage dispute, for example, there was secondary picketing at the docks to stop the movement of essential supplies, there was secondary picketing at the suppliers of raw materials to bring production lines to a halt, and there was secondary picketing at the producers of basic foodstuffs, and at food wholesalers, to bring about food shortages in the shops. That was not traditional picketing. It was the abuse of industrial power. Its aim was to bring industry to a halt, to spread and intensify disruption, and to put pressure on the whole community. Uncontrolled minorities put workers, who had no dispute with their employer, out of a job and inflicted needless hardship on the whole community.

Mr. Ron Leighton: I wonder what the Secretary of State feels are the credentials of The Sunday Times to pontificate when one thinks that its extremist management shut down that newspaper for a year, affecting people all over the country—Watford, where the colour supplement was produced, firms that made ink, and paper mills—all affected by an extremist management that shut down, without consultation, valuable publications for a year.

Mr. Prior: I do not think that that necessarily in any way contradicts what The Sunday Times stated. I am perfectly prepared to admit that I do not necessarily believe that newspapers are the best judges of good industrial relations.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East): Then why quote them? That is nonsense.

Mr. Prior: I said not necessarily the best judges, but sometimes they hit the nail on the head, as they did yesterday.
…it is clear that some picketing practices, and, in particular, secondary picketing, have given rise to the present serious situation".—[Official Report, 18 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1957.]
That view was expressed from this Dispatch Box last winter.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Although picketing can get out of hand—I think that everybody on this side of the House objects to the manhandling of other people—will the Secretary of State take into account, when he

lays restrictions upon the unions to prevent picketing, that the CBI is forming an association whereby any employer that causes a strike will be reimbursed? That means that the employers can get together but that the trade union movement is restricted from getting together.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am doing nothing to prevent unions from getting together in that way. I am saying that one must picket at one's own place of employment. That is a reasonable step to take after the events of last winter. As for employers getting together, that is entirely a matter for them. I gather that they are some way from that position at the moment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of what has been said in the House of Lords judgment on secondary strikes, does my right hon. Friend think that there is need for any change in the law or anything in that context arising from that judgment?

Mr. Prior: I shall come to that matter in a minute.

Mr. Eldon Grifflths: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. Before he leaves clause 14, may I ask him two questions on behalf of a group with which, as the House knows, I have a connection, namely, the police? First, does he intend to issue another code of practice that will deal with picketing, or are the codes of practice merely confined to the closed shop? Secondly, because the police often find themselves right in the middle, through no fault of their own, will he agree to receive a deputation from the Police Federation before clause 14 is reached in Committee?

Mr. Prior: I can answer the latter question in the course of the next few minutes. On the first question, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make a code of practice. He has to consult beforehand, and one of the bodies that he would obviously consult would be the police. If we cannot get an authoritative voluntary code, the Government will issue a code—I must make that absolutely plain—and I think that that would be in accordance with police requirements.
Clause 14 limits lawful picketing to an employee picketing at his own place of work. The existing right of someone to


picket his own place of work is unaffected. The existing right to demonstrate or protest is also unaffected. The Bill does not create any additional burden on the police because it does not create any new criminal offence. We are proposing simply to restore the right to take civil proceedings where secondary picketing induces a breach of contract. In everyday terms, that means that someone may ask the courts for an injunction to restrain unlawful secondary picketing. The remedy is in the hands of the employer whose business and the jobs of whose employees are put at risk.

Mr. David Price(Eastleigh): Do I correctly interpret the drafting of clause 14 as meaning that the employer can take action only against an individual and not against a trade union, and that the current immunity for trade unions remains preserved?

Mr. Prior: What would happen in these circumstances is that an employer would have to name a person—it could be a trade union official or just another person who was picketing—

Mr. Price: But it would have to be an individual?

Mr. Prior: It would have to be an individual, and with that individual could be added a number of other names as well. The normal law as it applies now and has applied in recent weeks and months would continue to apply just as it does today. There would be no difference between the practice now and the practice once the Bill is passed.

Mr. Price: Surely, in view of the judgment in Express Newspapers v. MacShane, any union official who acted in his union capacity would be completely out with the provisions of clause 14.

Mr. Prior: I am advised that that is not correct. But we shall look at that as we go along, and in a minute or two I shall say a word about the recent judgment in the House of Lords.
Clause 15 deals specifically with the tactics described by Mr Andrew Leggatt in his report on union recruitment activities in the art and advertising industries. SLADE had been prepared to bring companies to the brink of ruin in order to

force their employees into union membership and to destroy the jobs of those who were unwilling to join. SLADE's activities brought that union almost universal condemnation—including from this Dispatch Box when the Labour Government were in office. The law must be changed to provide specific protection against such strong-arm tactics in case they are ever used again.
The Bill therefore provides protection to an employer who is subjected to industrial action by employees of another company designed to compel his employees to become members of a particular trade union against their will. This secondary action might take the form of blacking of the firm's goods or materials. The Bill enables that employer to seek an injunction to restrain such secondary action.
I turn now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). Clauses 14 and 15 both involve specific changes to the law on immunities to deal with specific problems. We are continuing with our review of the general law on trade union immunities. Last Thursday the House of Lords gave its judgment in the case of Express Newspapers v. MacShane. This case raised issues of central importance to our review. We are now considering their Lordships' judgment carefully. We shall take whatever action seems necessary in the light of that judgment and bring it before the House in due course. There are vital and delicate matters which will require a great deal of thought.
Finally, clause 16 repeals schedule 11 and also the statutory recognition procedures of the Employment Protection Act 1975.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, if clause 16 is carried, one of its effects will be to take from ACAS its present responsibility and duty finally to decide in trade union recognition disputes—a power that has been of great value to smaller trade unions, including several affiliated to the TUC? Would it not be a great pity if that were done, and, further, will the Secretary of State read some of his own speeches on this matter made, I think, about 20 months ago on a certain Private Member's Bill?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman has got there just before I have. I am coming to that in a moment.
Schedule 11 was primarily intended to deal with pockets of low pay, but this has not been its effect. Asregards the statutory recognition procedures, in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, hardly anyone—including ACAS—has been happy with the way they have worked.
I have made clear to the House on previous occasions my full commitment to an independent and respected conciliation service. I believe it to be vital that the valuable conciliation services of ACAS should not be tarnished by association. The compulsory element of the work of ACAS has jarred with every other aspect of its work, which rests on a voluntary approach. I have had to give, and must continue to give, top priority to the true independence of ACAS, which I believe to be of incredible value to this country.
I should say that I am not wholly unsympathic to the idea of some statutory recognition provision. I appreciate the problems for smaller unions, including the EMA—there are other unions even smaller—but I feel, on balance, that such was the damage to ACAS that it would be better to proceed as we propose. The voluntary services of ACAS in recognition cases will still be available, and I intend to discuss with ACAS the scope of its issuing guidance to employers and unions to help on recognition issues.

Mr. John Gorst: My right hon. Friend will be aware that section 1(2) of the Act, which he is not proposing to repeal, provides that ACAS shall be charged with the
general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular of encouraging…collective bargaining.
Will that still continue to be the remit of ACAS? I ask that because it does not fit very well with its obligation to conciliate and arbitrate.

Mr. Prior: I do not think that the terms of reference of ACAS, now that the statutory provisions have been removed, will be in any way inconsistent with the promotion of good industrial relations and the encouragement of collective bargaining by voluntary means. Both from my hon. Friend's point of view and from

the point of view of many other people I believe that now that the statutory provisions are being removed from ACAS the sting of that particular part will he very much diminished. I hope that we can build ACAS up into a truly independent service, because I believe that to be of great importance. I well understand the point that my hon. Friend has made. We have thought about it and consulted on it, but, on balance, we thought that the most important thing to do was to remove the statutory recognition procedures. By doing that we shall have removed the cause of those actions by ACAS which have proved most controversial, particularly in relation to the promotion of collective bargaining.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State and I shall take but a moment merely to put this question. Is he implying that ACAS is at present anything other than wholly independent?

Mr. Prior: It is not what I think. It is what the country thinks, it is what small businesses think, it is what other people think—[HON. MEMBERS: "What the Tories think".]—and it is therefore most important that ACAS should gain a reputation for impartiality. I believe that it has a reputation for impartiality, but a lot of other people do not believe it. It is far better that we face up to that fact and deal with that section of the Employment Protection Act which did most to cause great trouble to ACAS itself. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members should read the letter sent to me by the ACAS council on the subject of recognition—it has been issued—which clearly shows that ACAS found itself in enormous difficulties in statutory recognition cases.

Mr. Palmer: Mr. Palmer rose—

Mr. Prior: No, I cannot give way again.
If the Opposition are true to form, they will argue that no changes in the law should be made and that we should leave these admittedly difficult and emotional matters to the unions themselves and to their codes of practice. That was the view expressed in the House and in other places after "In Place of Strife"—a solemn and binding and binding understanding, as we were told it was.
It appears once more today that that is to be the easy answer. I simply do not believe, after the chaos and bitterness of last winter and of years past, that that is a tenable position. Of course, we do not expect changes in the law to end all these problems overnight, but I believe that our proposals are the only and the best way to deal with a number of urgent problems and with situations where there is seen to be specific abuse. In this the law has a part to play. We have to give management and unions the ground rules which enable them to bring about industrial peace.
There are some things in a democracy which, perhaps, are better carried through by one side rather than the other. It may be that because of the Labour Party's relationship with the unions it is not possible for a Labour Government ever to take the necessary steps, even though in their hearts many members of Labour Governments know that they should do so. They will do a great disservice to themselves and to our country if they do not give the Bill a fair wind.
This is not a measure designed to change the whole structure of industrial relations. It is not a measure to clobber the unions. It is neither doctrinaire nor draconian. In 1974, when the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill had completed its passage, I urged my party, which was in Opposition, to stick to it, to accept it as a solid foundation. It would have met the desire of Parliament to settle the question and to put an end to damaging and divisive debate.
We have a further chance to do that at the end of today's debate and in the coming months. If we fail, we shall condemn ourselves to a continuing struggle that will sap the strength of our nation. We can start today on a new course. After the experience of the past 20 years, it is already late but our duty is clear.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I commiserate with the Secretary of State for having drawn the short straw in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman is the sacrificial victim who is required by Tory ritual to lead the traditional war dance against the trade unions.
I want to start on a non-controversial note. The decade ends as it began with

a Tory Government placing before the House a puny yet damaging measure with the impossible objective of fulfilling Tory election slogans, which like all other savage war-cries are as meaningless as they are bloodcurdling.
The Prime Minister spent last winter and the spring breathing fire. The poor old Secretary of State now has the dirty job of raking up the embers to get a few sparks out of them. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that while he is arousing the hostility of trade unions by needlessly provoking them when he desperately requires their co-operation, he is arousing expectations among the union bashers on the Government Back Benches which the Bill does not begin to fulfil.
The right hon. Gentleman has acted similarly to the other Cabinet moderate, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced shoddy immigration proposals. The Bill is sufficiently provocative and damaging to minorities, but it goes nowhere near far enough to satisfy the uglier sentiments expressed on the Tory Back Benches. Those who express such sentiments will be shouting out during my speech.
There is no doubt that the Bill will weaken and damage trade union rights and individual rights. When it reaches Committee, I promise the Government that the Opposition will subject it to detailed and unremitting scrutiny. On Second Reading it is important to highlight some of the most damaging and some of the most uncertain proposals that erode rights and create dangerous uncertainties.
It was significant that when the right hon. Gentleman came to the uncertainties he said that he did not know and that he would leave it all to the wonderful codes that will be produced at some stage. That will not do. He knows that some of the measures that he is proposing will not be settled by codes. There must be a great deal of agonising in the Department of Employment as Ministers wonder what to put in the codes. That is why the right hon. Gentleman had no way of dealing with the question put to him by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths).
I suppose that when the right hon. Gentleman gave drafting instructions to his Department, he decided deliberately to start with ballots. He probably said


"Let's get the easy stuff out of the way straight away." I have no great objections to ballots. I cannot have objections to them. Most of my trade union experience as an officer in the National Union of Mineworkers was gained with the use of the secret ballot.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: But not postal ballots.

Mr. Varley: No, but they were secret ballots. Even the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there should be postal ballots in all circumstances. We shall have to see what the wonderful codes produce. The union of which I have most knowledge and experience still practises secret ballots. We shall want to know what the Certification Officer will do and how he will administer the scheme. Let no one imagine that ballots are the universal remedy for settling industrial disputes. To believe that displays a nave view of how unions govern themselves and how negotiations are conducted.
The one ballot that was ordered under the Industrial Relations Act turned out disastrously. I should not need to remind a Tory Government that the miners' strikes of 1972 and 1974 began only after secret ballots had been held. So much for the panacea of ballots. There are some on the Conservative Benches who believe that ballots are a panacea.
There must be far greater misgivings about the provisions of clauses 3, 4 and 6 that relate to union membership agreements—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give one reason why he opposes the modest proposal for ballots? It is not as if the Government are proposing to make them compulsory. How can he attack that proposal?

Mr. Varley: I thought that I had made it clear that I do not oppose union ballots. My experience in my trade union life is that it is right for unions to ballot if they want to do so. It is only fair that trade unions should be able to conduct themselves in that way. Most of the unions that have secret ballots are able to organise them without the help of Government money or taxpayers' money. They offer no panacea.
There are much greater misgivings—

Mr. Chris Patten: Mr. Chris Patten (Bath) rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall probably give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
There are much greater misgivings about clauses 3, 4 and 6 that relate to union membership agreements. During the weekend Mr. Anthony Frodsham, the Director-General of the Engineering Employers' Federation, voiced some of the misgivings when, as quoted in the Financial Times, he said that the federation had
technical but important objections to the conscience clause and the stipulation that a closed shop should be set up only if an 80 per cent. ballot of employees approved…the clause would allow individuals to chop and change within unions as well as objecting to membership of any union on principle. That would lead not so much to fragmentation of bargaining arrangements but to squabbling over minor issues.
The head of industrial relations of the Engineering Employers' Federation, Mr. John Porter, put it even more bluntly when he said:
We have to say that in engineering there are not very many problems that will be solved by the kind of measures proposed.
I am sure that Conservative Members will agree that many other employers agree with the federation.
The proposals contain another glaring anomaly. It may be that it is done intentionally. If a worker decides that he wants to be a non-unionist, he will have the right to take action against a trade union. However, if a worker who is a trade unionist asserts his rights, he will have no redress against an employer who refuses to employ him because he is a member of a trade union. The sloppy thinking that riddles clauses 3, 4 and 6 is a recipe for endless friction and disputes.
The Bill, like the immigration rules, demonstrates a curious as well as a nasty attitude to be taken by a Government who are headed by a woman Prime Minister—a deliberate sexist discrimination against women.
Clauses 10 and 11, relating to maternity pay and a woman's right to return to her job after having a baby, are spiteful and mean. No woman, without the advice and help of a strong union, can be certain of getting her job back, faced with such bureaucratic procedures.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman denounced clauses 3 and 4. I do not understand why he suggested that it was unreasonable to give a right of compensation to an employee who had been unfairly excluded or expelled from trade union membership. Perhaps he will tell us why he opposed it.

Mr. Varley: It is not clear. In moving the Bill, the Secretary of State did not make the matter clear. There is a glaring anomaly in the Bill. A chap who does not want to be a trade unionist can seek rights not to be one and obtain compensation if he is unfairly dismissed. A trade unionist who wants employment may be excluded by an employer because he is a trade unionist. What will the Government do about that provision?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall not give way yet. As I develop my speech, I may give way, but I am only a little way into my speech.
We are all aware of the Prime Minister's animus against picketing. The Bill seeks to give legal force to her strident prejudice. However, it is so ambiguously drafted that it will cause more problems than it will solve.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the previous Home Secretary, pointed out to me that the Bill threw an intolerable burden on the rank-and-file policeman. The police constable at the picket line must separate the unquestionably legal primary picketing sheep from the potentially illegal secondary picketing goats. He must cross-question the pickets. He must decide who meets the conditions of the Act and who does not. He must take action against those whom he thinks fail the test. The Bill is so vaguely worded that almost any decision he takes will be disputed and end up in a court of law. That is an intolerable burden to place on a working policeman. Once again, it will mean a field day for the lawyers. I understand that the lawyers cheer this measure. Whoever loses under Tory industrial legislation, it is always the lawyers who gain.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. Nor did the former Home Secretary—but then he never read anything. This has absolutely nothing to

do with the police. It has nothing to do with criminal law. It is entirely a matter for the person who believes that his contracts are in some way being broken to take action through the civil court. The police are in no way involved in this.

Mr. Varley: We shall go into this matter in great depth in Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving us an assurance on Second Reading that, if so-called secondary pickets take action, they may go on to support, as it were, their colleagues in another factory, and that if they do so the police will not be involved at all? That will not stop that situation. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, anything that happened in the road haulage dispute last year would not have been affected by this measure.

Mr. Prior: I am saying precisely what I said in my speech. The Bill does not put any additional burden on the police as it does not create any new criminal offence. We propose simply to restore the right to take civil proceedings where secondary picketing induces a breach of contract.

Mr. Varley: I am absolutely astonished if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the purpose of his Bill is not to take action against instances which occurred last winter and which he described. If he is now saying that, he is misleading his Back Benchers.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is it not the position that the police now have a right and a duty to intervene when a breach of public order is likely to be created? Is it not also a fact that the Bill in no way alters that duty and responsibility? The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter. I take his views seriously. If either in a code of practice or statutorily there were to be imposed some limit on the numbers of pickets coming before a factory, would he support that in the interests of enabling the police to maintain public order and fairness on all sides?

Mr. Varley: I shall come to what I believe to be a sensible code of practice. Numbers are critical. It is possible for the police, in discussion with those who are taking the action and picketing, to come to an arrangement about numbers. That happens at the moment. Most picketing is done peacefully, as the right hon.


Gentleman will acknowledge, and a relationship is established between the pickets and the police. Only on rare occasions does violence break out. When it does, it is deplored by the trade unions as much as by anyone else.
I had better not rub too much salt in the right hon. Gentleman's wounds. However, if he is saying that no duty will be placed on the police to determine what is secondary picketing, he misled the whole of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Prior: It is perfectly obvious from all that the right hon. Gentleman has said in the past five minutes that he read neither the Bill nor the consultative documents or what the TUC said.

Mr. Varley: I read the Bill and the working papers and took advice from other people. I said that the right hon. Gentleman had misled Government supporters. He is not standing in my position. He cannot see the looks on the faces of some of his hon. Friends. I am sure that when he turns up at the Tory Party conference next October he will have a rough ride indeed.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman now says that this is a perfectly reasonable step to take.

Mr. Varley: I am saying nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman understands what I am saying. When it comes to picketing, rather than impose legalistic restrictions, which will harm and not help industrial relations, the right hon. Gentleman misled the House, and especially the Conservative Party.
These are some of the objections. The questions of interpretation are niggling and damaging. If the Tory Party asks the Opposition what we would like to do on this point—as it and the country are entitled to ask—I shall be frank. The reply is this: nothing very spectacular. [Interruption.] I knew that that would get a laugh.
In introducing the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman—until a few moments ago—gave the impression that he had some cure-alls and that there would be some legislative panacea. Until the events of last winter, this country had had the best industrial peace we had known for a decade. The Minister of State gave the facts to the House recently. In the four

full years of the Labour Government from 1975 to 1978, 28·8 million working days were lost in strikes compared with 44·7 million days lost in the three full Tory years from 1971 to 1973. An average of 7 million days were lost under Labour compared with 15 million days lost under the Tories.
Under the present Secretary of State's tender ministrations, the situation is far worse than it was under any of his Tory predecessors. During his first six months of office 20·7 million working days have been lost in strikes—more than twice as many as in the worst full year of the previous Labour Government. That period of industrial peace, that success of the Labour Party's approach, was brought to an end by a reaction to incomes policy. I still contend that that policy contained the seeds of an answer to part of our inflationary problem. Abetted by the Conservative Party, it failed to obtain the consent of the trade unions and their members. We learnt that lesson. It was a lesson learnt by everyone.
Industrial harmony—which was obtained (luring most of the period of the previous Labour Government—can be obtained only by consultation and consent. It requires a readiness to agree on the part of three participants—the unions, their members and the Government.
The Labour Government's voluntary pay policy broke down because, while some trade union leaders were ready to agree with it, they could not carry their members with them. The Labour Party has learnt that lesson, and it is ready to acknowledge it. The Conservative Party was taught an equally bruising lesson. But the introduction of the Bill shows that, if the lesson was ever learnt, it has been forgotten. The Conservative Government are now seeking, for a second time, to impose vexatious legislation—which will not solve anything—on the trade unions. That will remove from the unions any feeling that they have an obligation voluntarily to contribute towards improved industrial relations and trade union practice. If the Government tell the unions that they will legislate, the natural reaction of the unions, if their representations are ignored—as they have been ignored—is to say "Get on with it, but do not expect anything from us." It is paradoxical that out of the last cruel winter emerged the hopeful prospects of


the best kind of regulation of trade unions—self-regulation.
The code of conduct contained in the TUC guide is a recipe for industrial peace.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead) rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall not give way now.

Mr. Lyell: Mr. Lyell rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Varley: The best industrial practice is self-regulation. It is essential that any code of practice should be observed. I know that the Minister does not disparage his code of practice. He said in his speech that he welcomed a voluntary code of practice. I was once told that no legislation was totally bad. Parts of the code of practice. I was one told that no Industrial Relations Act 1971 survive to this day. The more harmful parts have been repealed.
In the same way, it may be that some of the less contentious fragments of this Bill can be allowed to survive the next Labour Government. But the more damaging parts will be repealed, just as the more damaging parts of the Industrial Relations Act were repealed. That is our pledge to the country and to the unions. In return, we expect the unions to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of the TUC guides are fully observed. There must be no exceptions. There must be no Charing Cross hospital incidents. The spirit and the letter of genuine paternal values have made British trade unionism envied throughout the world for more than a century.

Mr. Lyell: I have here the February guidelines, which make clear in the strongest language, used by the TUC, that before industrial action takes place union members should be consulted by a ballot. It is sad, therefore, to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that he takes no great objection to that aspect. Why cannot we stand together? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman stand up for something which is correct?

Mr. Varley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports me in saying that the voluntary code of conduct is the better way of dealing with the matter

than the legislative arrangement on which the Government are now embarking. I commend the code of practice to all Conservative Members. I suspect that not many of them have read it. It refers to balloting, picketing, and so on.
What will be the outcome of the measures contained in the Bill? They violate the wise dictum of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he said that industrial relations are human relations. The right hon. Gentleman sits where he does now because in a fit of aberration he disregarded his own wise words. It is a fateful irony that we are debating this Bill almost nine years to the day after the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill. Today's debate is muted compared with that Second Reading, when there was a two-day debate with the participation of no less a personage than the then Prime Minister. He concluded his speech with these powerful words:
The ideas in the Bill have been widely discussed and carefully prepared. The time has now come to carry through this reform which the people overwhelmingly demand."—[Official Report, 15 December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1143.]
That Act was an abject failure, as everyone now acknowledges. It cured no industrial disputes. It caused many. It was deleted unmourned from the statute book. The deep ill feeling that it provoked helped to hurl the right hon. Member for Sidcup from the position of the Queen's First Minister to his present obscure discontent. That is the lesson that the Secretary of State for Employment should take to heart, for he was once a faithful disciple of the right hon. Member for Sidcup.
The proposals in the Bill will not prevent a single industrial dispute that would have taken place if the Bill had never seen the light of day, nor will they solve a single dispute which their very presence on the statute book is likely to provoke. To make industrial relations a field day for the lawyers is also to make a field day for irresponsible agitators.
If the Bill had been on the statute book a year ago, it would neither have prevented The Times dispute nor have settled it. It would not have prevented the road haulage dispute, nor would it have settled it. It is open to extreme doubt whether it would have done more to deal with so-called secondary picketing than the code of


practice of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The definitions in the Bill are so vague and open to dispute that only interpretations which are unfathomable at this stage can put them right. If it is necessary to take legal action to deal with alleged secondary picketing, why bother with this legislation? After all, civil legal action was successfully taken last winter. If the Bill had been on the statute book last winter, it would neither have prevented nor solved any of the dirty job strikes, nor would it have prevented the action taken outside hospitals and schools.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: We wish to be clear about the Secretary of State's interpretation of the Bill. The Bill would not have prevented the Grunwick episode in the absence of the employer there seeking to sue pickets for breach of contract. The Minister now says that outsiders on the picket line—those who do not work in the establishment—would not be interfered with by the police, and that under his Bill they would be committing no offence. The TUC and many Labour Members have misunderstood the Bill. The Minister now says that the police would not take action if ousiders joined a picket line. That point needs to be made absolutely clear.

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend has highlighted some of the other difficulties.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall not give way. I have already instanced that the Bill would not have prevented any of those disputes. It certainly would not have prevented the action taken outside Charing Cross hospital. The Bill would have done nothing to prevent or solve the recent Independent Television dispute. The Bill would neither have prevented nor solved the most damaging of all recent industrial disputes—the strike in the engineering industry. If the miners had voted for industrial action two weeks ago, the Bill would have done nothing to prevent that. The miners, as I have already said, did not even want the Government's money for their ballot.
If the Bill were now law, it could do nothing to prevent the most damaging of all threatened industrial strikes now looming—the strike in the steel industry. If that strike were to break out in a

fortnight, the Bill, if it were then law, could do nothing to solve it.
No wonder that The Times, now back on the bookstalls—no thanks to the Government—scathingly said, in a leading article:
This Bill does little indeed, very little, to help.
But it was another newspaper, the Financial Tunes, which exposed the vacuum that this piece of legislation seeks to conceal. Talking about the name of the Employment Bill, the Financial Times declared:
The title is triumphantly anodyne. It is also quite misleading".

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall not give way any more.
I can quite understand why the Secretary of State did not want to call this measure an industrial relations Bill. Revisiting the scene of the crime is one thing, but it would take a bigger fool than the Secretary of State for Employment to carry the same guide book as steered Lord Carr of Hadley to the obscurity of the House of Lords. To call this an employment Bill really is intolerably fraudulent. What on earth has it to do with creating employment? For how many unemployed workers will it find jobs? The answer, of course, is: not a single one.
What has the Secretary of State done, in the 227 days that he has held office, either to create a single job or even to save a single job that is under threat? Not a blessed thing. When the law is being flouted in an area of high unemployment, what does the Secretary of State do? Not a thing. When the Secretary of State for industry imposes a nonsensical deadline on the British Steel Corporation, placing tens of thousands of jobs in peril, where is the Secretary of State for Employment? There is not a sign of him.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State is concerned about all those job losses in the steel industry, particularly in South Wales and the North-East, but it is about time that he started using his minority voice against the Secretary of State for Industry. If he does, we can assure him that from the Labour Benches we shall give him maximum support. He


cannot be very happy about what is taking place there.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Varley: I shall not give way again. I have given way a great deal, and many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
When the Secretary of State for the Environment imposes his dictatorial spending cuts that will destroy countless jobs, where is the Secretary of State for Employment? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer jacks up the minimum lending rate to 17 per cent., with all that that implies for employment and small firms, there is not a whimper out of the Secretary of State for Employment.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury tells us of an additional 300,000 people in the dole queue. The Treasury economic forecasts tell us of a 2 per cent. decline in industrial activity. A leading firm of stockbrokers told us last week that unemployment is likely to rise particularly quickly next year, and is likely to go up to 2,250,000, or about 10 per cent. of the labour force. What is the Secretary of State doing to prevent that horrendous possibility from coming about? He is doing nothing.
We all know that the Secretary of State for Employment is a nice guy. He is the nice guy of the Cabinet. I quite like him, too. But I can tell him plainly here and now that being a nice guy is not enough. We want action from him to save and create jobs. So far, in the seven months that he has held office, he has taken three positive actions. The first was to slash £170 million off the Labour Government's job creation scheme. The second was to reduce the budget of the Manpower Services Commission and undermine the valuable work that that body does. The third initiative has been to introduce this damaging, deceptive and irrelevant Bill.
The best favour that this House can do the Secretary of State tonight is to throw out the Bill.

Mr. Den Dover: I make no apology whatever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for waiting this long to make my maiden speech. I realise that I may be one of the last few hon. Members—or indeed the last hon. Member—to do so. But the subject

of industrial relations is extremely important to the future of this country, and we must get the industrial relations legislation correct.
I should like to say a few words about the Chorley constituency in Lancashire, which I represent. There are two towns Chorley and Leyland, and there are 22 villages. The scenery ranges from a mini-lake district in Rivington, through farmland, and we have industry ranging from small industry up to the very largest.
Over the last two or three years British Leyland has invested capital expenditure of over £100 million in the creation of new employment at both Chorley and Leyland. I am very proud of that fact and pleased to announce that the mood of British Leyland workers on the shop floor of British Leyland in the truck and bus division, where about 90 per cent. of the lorries are made, in Chorley and Leyland, is very high indeed. They are backing Sir Michael Edwardes' plan for British Leyland. They are working very hard to make sure that British Leyland is a success.
Unfortunately, during the recent general election campaign the Member for Chorley from 1945 to 1970, Clifford Kenyon, much beloved in the House, died at the ripe age of 82. He was a local preacher, and much loved in the area. He was a farmer in Clitheroe and everyone admired his hard work on behalf of the constituents of Chorley, Leyland and the area.
My immediate predecessor, George Rodgers, who was a welder and a trade union Member, also worked hard on behalf of all his constituents, irrespective of party. I should like to pay a tribute to the memory of George Rodgers in this House.
I have had 20 years' experience in the construction industry, in both public and private sectors. I spent the first 10 years with a major contrator and then worked away from the direct workface, where I had been responsible for construction work, by going into management consultancy, property development and construction work overseas.
When I returned to work in the United Kingdom, in charge of 3,000 direct workers for the Greater London Council, I found that industrial relations during those seven years had changed markedly.


With all the legislation on the Floor of the House, the unions had much more power and influence. There had been created a grave imbalance between employers and employees, between management and trade unions. Whereas when I went into other activities the amount of time spent by me as a manager and by other managers on trade union and industrial relations matters was probably 20 or 25 per cent., on my return I found to my horror that probably 60 or 70 per cent. of the time was spent on industrial relations matters, to the detriment of the future of the employer and the employee together.
I am in favour of trade unions, but what I do not want to see is any trade union becoming the master of its members instead of their servant. I support the measures in the Bill, particularly the secret ballots to be paid for by the Government, because the ordinary trade union members in my constituency have been crying out for this every day virtually since the general election. They want it and they will welcome it with open arms.
I also support the proposed ban on secondary picketing. Secondary picketing was at its worst during the winter of discontent last year. I am delighted that we are to do something about that. I am also in favour of the closed shop provisions, with people being able to claim for unfair dismissal on the ground of conscience and deeply held personal conviction. That is an excellent provision.
The Bill raises many unanswered questions that will remain unanswered until something further is put on the statute book. First, I raise the question of secret ballots. These are to be voluntary. We may find that trade unions will frustrate their members from expressing a view in secret ballots purely because a trade union has no wish to hold a secret ballot, even though the opportunity is there for the Government to pay for such ballots.
Secondly, what, if anything, is to be done about blacking? Blacking is just as iniquitous as secondary picketing or picketing. There is no mention in the Bill about how a dispute can spread to other construction sites or factories, causing grave harm to the British economy.
My worst reservation is on the closed shop. I cannot see how the United Kingdom can hold its head high in Europe

when it is the only country that allows the closed shop. I do not recommend the banning of the closed shop, although I believe that it is iniquitous and I do not want to see it happen. But what I should like to see is one sentence in legislation about this. The Confederation of British Industry has made its view clear on this matter, as has the Institute of Directors. There should be freedom to join a trade union and also the freedom not to join a union.
I hazard a reasonable guess that two-thirds of the workers in the construction industry do not want to join a trade union. They do not want to be bothered with all the hassle and inefficiency that are created by having their thoughts diverted from the job in hand and on to disruption. They want to be free to get on with the job, uninterrupted by trade union action.
I have expressed my keen interest in industrial relations and mentioned my past experience and my belief that the Bill will help a little, though it leaves many questions unanswered. I hope that the Secretary of State will not hesitate to bring in new measures. In that context I do not necessarily mean just codes of practice which cannot be enforced by law and leave a lot to voluntary action—and we have seen that voluntary action does not produce the goods.
I implore the Secretary of State to work hard on behalf of the economy. If we get our industrial relations right, we can look forward to an improved future and be able to hold our heads high as one of the competitive nations of the world.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) by referring to the place where he first cut his political teeth—Caerphilly—and what happened there. I understand that the hon. Member has another distinction. He is a civil engineering graduate of Manchester university. That distinguishes him in this place, because he is one of very few hon. Members who are professional engineers, although, sadly, he is only a civil engineer. None the less I hope that he will make a contribution in the House as an engineer, as distinct from a proper engineer. I see the hon. Member smiling


at what I say. However, as an engineer, he is welcome.
I understand also that the hon. Member for Chorley is a product of Manchester grammar school. No doubt that endears him to the hearts of another select band of Mancunians in this place. He served his apprenticeship with a local authority. All that no doubt gives him access to a number of select groups of people who also served their apprenticeships as engineers and as members of local authorities and who come from Manchester, a city that has produced so much.
I join the hon. Member in his remarks about Clifford Kenyon. The hon. Member was right when he said that we all had a great love for Clifford Kenyon. He made an outstanding contribution to the House, as did George Rodgers. George Rodgers was a great individual and a marvellous contributor to debates, especially those dealing with labour relations and industrial matters. His contributions have certainly been missed.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the blacking of work. I understand that there are restrictions on one's treatment of maiden speeches, so I shall not be too rough. However, the blacking of work is an alternative to secondary picketing. It is something that the present Minister and his predecessors have never been able to tackle. Blacking has characteristics that prevent its being dealt with in the courts. It cannot be defined in legal terms. Therefore, blacking of work will develop as a result of this piece of legislation.
In the engineering industry, because of the absence of secondary picketing, where there is a conglomerate or group of factories working on co-ordinated programmes in manufacture, if there is an industrial dispute that prevents production in one factory, that work will not be allowed to be transferred to another factory. It will be blacked and will lie on the shop floor for as long as the dispute continues. That is the most effective method of secondary picketing. One of the results of the Bill will be to strengthen the idea of blacking work.
I am opposed to the Bill not because it is the thin end of the wedge but because it is the thick end of it. I say

that for the reasons spelt out by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman apologised, saying that the Bill had became necessary because he had failed to get the voluntary agreement of the TUC. I shall refer to that in a moment and follow the remarks made by the Minister when he presented the Bill.
Two matters about which we must be clear are the function of the police in these matters and the coming together of outsiders to join pickets who are employees of the factory that is picketed. Though the Minister departed from the seven working papers, he gave the impression that he was about to outlaw outsiders and prevent them from joining picket lines outside factories where they were not employed.
The Minister created that impression by deliberately setting out in the Bill a definition of workers who have been sacked. He gives those people the right to picket the places where their employment has been terminated. By that he has led the TUC to interpret the Bill as meaning that outsiders—those not employed at a plant or factory—will not be permitted to picket outside that factory. Only employees of that factory, together with trade union officials, will legitimately be allowed to picket.
The Minister went on to enlarge on that—and this is certainly the TUC's understanding of the Bill—by saying that it is only when the employer decides to go for a breach of contract and sues either the union collectively or the pickets individually that the police become involved. Presumably that is because the police would have to make arrests if the employer objected to certain pickets.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was right when he suggested that the police will be more involved than at present once the Bill becomes a statute. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State deny all that and that we can, in fact, have a repetition of the Grunwick situation in the sense that many people can still protest outside a factory for many reasons other than those directly concerning the dispute inside. Therefore, whether it is at Garners Steak House or Grunwick, the Bill will not interfere with that kind of picketing and demonstration.

Mr. Prior: I think that I should put the hon. Member back on the rails. I shall read to him paragraph 10 of the consultative document which was sent to the TUC and other organisations. It says:
One approach would be to amend section 13 so as to limit in respect of picketing the immunity conferred by this section to persons who picket within the redefined limits of section 15. This would mean that anyone who picketed outside the limits laid down in the amended section 15 would not be protected by section 13 if that picketing induced breaches of contract. It would then be for the employer concerned to initiate action when he thought that picketing was unlawful and damaging his firm's operations.
There has never been any doubt in the TUC's mind as to the effect of that paragraph. In fact, in the letter that it sent me it regarded that as an extension of the civil law. That is the position.

Mr. Atkinson: Precisely. It is an extension of the civil law, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clearing up that point. There has been universal misunderstanding about this aspect of the legislation. I have here the notes produced by the TUC, which spell out the whole question of outsiders being permitted to take part in a picket. If that is so, all that the Secretary of State is pointing out is the vulnerability of trade unionists exposed to litigation as a result of breach of contract. If that is what he is arguing, we have a very different situation from the whole concept that he has been building up on the limitation of picketing and the question of identity of official pickets. Why go to all this trouble if there is no necessity to identify official pickets and if outsiders are not offending anyone, particularly the police?

Mr. David Mellor: Does the hon. Member not realise that the criminal law covers this point in the law on obstruction? It is up to the police to exercise discretion on whether a particular body of people are causing an obstruction. That is why the criminal law does not need reform. It will be up to an individual police officer to take account of the circumstances and say whether picketing amounts to obstruction. There is the quite separate point whether, in the event of last winter, the police should have taken a more active role.

Mr. Atkinson: That may well be the case, but the hon. Member is dealing with the interpretation of a situation by some police officer. It is for the police officer to make up his own mind whether offences of obstruction or breach of the peace are being committed. We are talking about the introduction of a new law. We understood from the interpretation that it would be an offence for outsiders to join a picket. However, that is not the case.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Member may be quite surprised to hear that I share his interpretation of this. If lie goes back to the point that he raised earlier, namely, that of Grunwick, he will realise that all those thousands of people who turned up at the picket lines, as long as they described themselves simply as exercising their civil right to demonstrate or protest, would in no way be affected by the provisions of the Bill. To that extent I entirely agree with him.

Mr. Atkinson: The Secretary of State has dissociated himself from the disgraceful behaviour displayed by George Ward at the time, and I am glad that he has done so.
The second point made by the Secretary of State was that at a later stage he would produce a code of conduct on picketing. We inferred from that and from the way in which he presented his suggestion that that would be backed by statutory powers. That is the real question, because it is a new aspect in the debate. In all the preparatory papers that have been discussed prior to the Bill being introduced, this whole business of the code of conduct relative to picketing was not mentioned. If the Minister intends to suggest amendments to his Bill in Committee which bring in statutory powers, these will have to be looked at in a different way, and we shall have to reserve our comments until that time comes. But we must warn the trade union movement to be alert to the fact that there may be these changes on the way and that its members should not prematurely start singing the praises of any aspect of this Bill.
The clog, as they say in Lancashire, will come in Committee when we talk about statutory powers for a code of conduct. These powers will not be designed by ACAS. Up to now only ACAS could


design a code of coduct, but now a Minister is taking unto himself the responsibility for putting before the House the code of conduct and taking it into Committee. I assume from that that he will look for statutory powers to back his new code. Therefore, we should alert the trade union movement to expect difficulties in the whole area long before we get on to discussions about ballots and other powers.
On the question of voluntary ballots, the argument has already been put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. There are differences between trade unions about how they should use ballots. The only regret that I have about the use of ballots is that there has been a diminution of branch practice in trade union life which has caused many problems, both for industrialists and for trade union leaders. That is because they have been willing to check off trade union contributions from wages, and this, together with ballots, and so forth, means that there is very little need for the branch practice as it was known in the first 10 years after the war.
That will mean that from now on many trade unions will have seriously to consider the formation of factory branches as against district branches. That could spell out many problems that the Secretary of State has been trying to avoid by introducing his idea about making ballots available. In fact, it might destroy the whole concept of industrial relations based on secret ballots. It will be a different situation, and I believe that on the whole the Bill will make industrial relations much worse.
There is a tendency here to get into the courts with more issues, and that will complicate matters. It is generally recognised that the courts have never been able to make anything other than money for lawyers. That and perhaps legal reputations are the only products that they have ever been able to produce. They cannot make motor cars, ships or power stations, and therefore they should keep out of industrial relations.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I believe that the police will be more involved and that we shall be much more concerned with litigation when the Bill goes through than we are

now. It feeds the anti-trade union attitudes that are often adopted by the Establishment in our society. There is a tendency here to give credibility to some of the arguments that people use in their anti-trade union comments.
The Bill weakens job security in a serious way. That has already been spelt out, and I hope that in Committee a great deal of attention will be given to the way in which job security is reduced by the question of unfair dismissal. That is quite a serious inroad into the protection that is now afforded to trade unionists and workers throughout industry.
Finally, I return to the question of picketing and the use of ballots. From what the Secretary of State said about employers considering themselves in breach of contract and therefore suing trade unionists. I feel that this raises a number of issues, particularly the use by trade unions of the "unofficial" label for certain disputes. When the unions say that a certain dispute is unofficial, they do so to protect themselves against certain litigation to which they are now vulnerable. No longer will it be possible to say that this is an unofficial dispute and, therefore, they are not directly involved, particularly if in any way a trade union tries officially to apply to the Certification Officer for the cost of covering a ballot.
If there is a ballot in a factory, whether or not there is a strike, and the trade union officially applies for money to cover that ballot, that trade union is immediately involved in every sense. It can no longer say that it is involved in unofficial action if the decision of the ballot is to go for strike action. The employer can then name every one of his employees as in breach. He can sue the union collectively and there is no defence, as there has been in the past. From that point of view, all this weakens the trade unions' present position. As a result, trade unions will become extremely vulnerable to court action. I am sure that trade unions will want to be very careful indeed about applying for money to cover the cost of ballots.
As to picketing, ballots could help under those circumstances. They could assist the close-down of a particular plant. I do not believe that anyone would suggest that if a secret ballot takes


place it is counted under the strict conditions required by the Certification Officer. If that were the case, that surely imposes an obligation upon every worker in the plant. Once the decision is taken by the majority to go on strike and to stop the job, there can be no argument that a minority has the right to go into the factory to work. In other words, the outcome of the ballot must be to close down the factory.
The police should then become the picket, because in the name of democracy the police should honour the decision of the ballot to close the plant. The job of the police should not be to allow the minority that has been defeated to pass the picket line and go into the factory to work. Therefore, the issue of secondary picketing arises with greater strength if a ballot has been taken, because that decision must apply right down the line.
If democracy means anything, it means that the only right that a minority has is the right to work to change the majority decision. A minority has no other rights in democratic practice than to work collectively to change the majority decision. Therefore, once a ballot is taken the result becomes a majority decision. If the majority decision is that the whole of the plant should close, in the name of democracy, if for no other reason, the police have the responsibility to stop the job and to allow no one into the factory.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that to all votes in whatever forum? Secondly, if the vote was that there should not be a strike, and if any individual or group of workers decided to stay out on unofficial strike, what would happen to them?

Mr. Atkinson: That is the crux of the whole problem. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, that is my interpretation of democracy. That is what I mean when I say that the minority has no rights other than to try to change the majority decision within the rules that apply. We must accept the democratic decision, even though that decision may be against our own personal interests. We may be part of a minority, but under those circumstances we must accept the majority decision. I am certainly not one of those who believe that

democracy is a good thing only if it is on their side.
The question of what happens to minorities is a difficult one which, I suspect, will be dealt with in the code of conduct. For example, if a plant decides to hold a ballot, and if I know the Establishment at all, I know what the Certification Officer will say. He will say that he will provide money for the ballot only if all the staff, including the salaried staff, are involved in the ballot and not just the manual workers or the members of a particular union. The Certification Officer will say "Oh, no, we shall not give money for that. We shall provide money only if the salaried staff members of a work force are included in the vote". I want the Secretary of State and the trade union movement to be aware of, and alert to, the problems that could arise with regard to ballots.
If there is to be a two-way agreement with regard to the use of Government money for ballots, one of the provisions that will be laid down by those providing the money is that they will want all the work force—100 per cent. or nothing—to be involved in the ballot, and they will not allow minority sections to hold a ballot of their own. If there is a demarcation problem between skilled and non-skilled, that problem raises other questions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Atkinson: I shall not give way, because I am denying time for other hon. Members to contribute. I am being accused of putting ideas into the minds of Ministers, and that is the last thing that I want to do.
I end as I began. I believe that we should reject the Bill because it is the thick end of the wedge. For the reason that it will make trade union practices immeasurably more difficult, I hope that my hon. Friends will join together and do everything possible to prevent this latest work of the Tory Government from becoming law.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in order to make my maiden speech, which I do with the usual diffidence, and I crave the indulgence of the House. I, like my hon.


Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) in his accomplished and thoughtful speech, make no apology for rising late to address the House, because I consider this an important debate.
This is not the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber, as I have asked an oral question, but I am assured that that is in no way construed as a trial marriage. My predecessor in Ilford, South, Arnold Shaw, was, I understand, liked on both sides of the House as a conscientious constituency Member. Having myself been a parliamentary candidate for five years, I ran an advice bureau throughout, and it is therefore also my intention to take very good care of the constituency.
I remember that when he first defeated his predecessor, Albert E. Cooper, in 1966, Mr. Shaw wished him a long and happy retirement. That, of course, was the last thing that Mr. Cooper wanted. It certainly spurred him on to greater efforts to reverse the poll in the next election, which he achieved in 1970. This was again reversed in 1974. It will be appreciated that I do not intend to make the same mistake as Arnold Shaw, but he has already intimated that he does not propose to stand again, and, therefore, on this occasion I think that I can safely express that sentiment.
I am very proud to have been elected for Ilford, South, which is the constituency in which I was born. It was there that I attended my first school and ran a small business. In fact, I served in a choir with another boy, John Barnes, who has now returned as vicar of that same church. He chose righteousness and I chose politics, but some of us, Mr. Speaker, manage both. Several hon. Members have connections with my constituency, but perhaps the most notable person to have lived there in recent history was the late Cardinal Heenan. In his autobiography he wrote that when he was a boy, friends used to visit the family house for a weekend in the country.
The area has local industry, including Plessey, Ford and, until recently, Ilford Limited. Ilford has also served the London docks. Essentially, Ilford is an area that was created for commuters travelling to the City. At the end of the last century the railway companies required a guarantee of thousands of

pounds a year from the developers for the first five years before agreeing to construct those stations along the line on which Ilford was developed. It will therefore come as no surprise that one of my principal concerns is the commuter.
Two particular aspects are of concern in the Bill. First, there is no provision for across-the-board union consultation. I should like to feel that, for example, where two major railway unions are involved it will be possible to provide for consultations to be held on the future of the railways.
It is no secret that 75 per cent. of the cost of running the railways is taken up in wages. It is also no secret that commuters in my constituency suffer enormously as they stand on stations waiting for trains that regularly do not turn up on time. Unless manpower shortages are resolved, the situation will worsen and commuters will find an alternative means of getting to work. In the next 10 or 20 years we can expect a major change in office work. I foresee considerable development taking place along the lines of Prestel and other similar devices that enable workers to work more easily from their homes. If that development occurs, considerable pressure will be put on employers to allow their staff to work from home rather than going into the City to perform their tasks. That pressure will arise if office workers cannot rely upon a good commuter service into and out of the centre.
At the moment the commuter suffers when his train is cancelled due to inadequate rolling stock, or when insufficient crew have turned up to man the stock and bring it into the station. I should have welcomed some provision in the Bill whereby the major unions involved in providing guards and drivers were obliged to take account of the consumer and of a desire for single manning in the near future. However, I could not find any appropriate clause in the Bill.
Secondly, there is no basis for equivalence within industries. A number of my constituents are employees, or ex-employees, of the docks. Some of those men and women are on pensions that have not kept pace with inflation because the Port of London Authority is unable to meet the cost. When one inquires why


those pensions cannot keep pace with inflation, one discovers that the Port of London Authority cannot afford to pay the pensions that it would like to pay. It is bound by the unfortunate fact that its staff are exempted from the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act, causing it to employ 800 people a day, at a cost of £4 million a year more than it would otherwise need to pay.
It is a sad state of affairs that any Government could have committed the industry to paying out that sort of money whilst not taking account of its effect on other workers in the industry. If a union was able to obtain a guarantee of this sort from the Government by using its muscle, it should have ensured that none of the other workers in that industry suffered as a result. In hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assure me on those two points and that it will be possible to make adequate provision for them in the Bill.

Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the quality and brevity of his maiden speech. Perhaps it is appropriate that I follow him, because he made a few strictures on the railway system in and around his constituency. As a railway man, I assure him that if there is one segment of the community in which railwaymen are particularly interested, it is that of the consumer. The passenger is uppermost in the minds of most railwaymen, whether they work for Eastern region, Southern region or elsewhere, when they start their daily work. I hope that the hon. Member will tell that to his constituents when trains do not turn up for one reason or another, or turn up late. Train crews are frequently subject to abuse from passengers because they are quite rightly annoyed at the length of time that they have had to wait.
It is an immensely difficult task to follow someone as popular and hardworking as Arnold Shaw. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman that Arnold Shaw does not intend to stand in any future election, and on behalf of hon. Members I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing Arnold Shaw a long and happy retirement. We enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Gentleman—forthright as it was—and we hope to hear from him often in the future.
I shall confine my remarks concerning the Bill to clause 1 and clause 6. As regards clause 1, I claim a unique position as the only Member to have taken part in the ballot of 1972, ordered by the previous Conservative Government. I do not think that I shall destroy the secrecy of the ballot if I tell the Secretary of State that I voted for a strike, as did an overwhelming number of my fellow railwaymen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) rightly pointed out that secret ballots are no panacea for industrial relations, and many Conservative Members will no doubt agree with that. The danger is that Government-ordered secret ballots are likely to bring forth a backlash from within the industry concerned. The Secretary of State looks somewhat disbelieving. As an unpaid branch official in 1972, I spent a couple of days asking my colleagues—among them my late father, who was also a railwaymari—which way they would vote. My father said that we had a straight choice between the Government and our union. When Governments dabble in these matters—and dabble they do—they are liable to provoke such a backlash from even non-militant sections of the community.
I remember the 1972 ballot. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), in his able speech, referred to salaried staff. In the 1972 ballot, the then Conservative Government managed to provoke a 2: 1 reaction for a strike. I think that Conservative Members will forgive me for saying that this was from a non-millitant section of the railway industry, organised by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Because it was seen as a straight choice between the then Government and my union, white-collar workers in the industry decided—it was an amazing departure in view of their normal non-militancy—by a majority of 2: 1 on further industrial action.
The Secretary of State for Employment ought to bear in mind that one and only example—at least in my lifetime—before he purveys this panacea to the more extreme members of the Conservative Party, whether in this House or outside it.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: Like his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham


(Mr. Atkinson), the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the provisions of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to provide for Government-ordered ballots, under any terms whatsover. The Bill is simply making funds available so that the resources of unions that want to have ballots are not under pressure. We have heard over the years how certain sections of the trade union movement have called that in aid in favour of not having a ballot. This at least frees them from that constraint.

Mr. Snape: I regard the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) as one of the more sane and sensible Conservative Members—and there are precious few of those around these days. However, he will know full well the immense pressure that will come, from Fleet Street in particular, on each and every trade union to have such a ballot on each and every dispute. Many unions, quite legitimately, could say "We have already consulted our members." No union consults its membership more than the National Union of Railwaymen, my own union. If a union says "We have already consulted our membership about this dispute", the Daily Mail, The Sun and the other organs of Fleet Street democracy would be the first to say "Ah, but this is another example of the wicked Left-wing trade union leadership taking its members away from the paths of righteousness and dragging them down the slippery slopes of militancy." The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is what they would say.
I repeat what I said earlier. Once it becomes accepted that the Government of the day, however nebulously, are interfering in these matters, that will be an incentive for any trade union to act militantly.
Having dealt with that point—perhaps not to the Secretary of State's satisfaction—I should like to move on to deal with clause 6. Again, I want to put the record straight as regards the closed shop. The railway unions—indeed, the whole railway industry—have been the object of considerable recrimination over the years for their closed shop arrangements. The Conservative Party particularly seems to feel that thousands of railway workers have been browbeaten and coerced into

joining one of the three railway unions against their will. We are all familiar with the deep concern felt by the Conservative Party and its Fleet Street allies for the average railway worker. It is a concern amply illustrated in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, where, in an article unusual in its eccentricity even for an organ such as that, The Daily Telegraph calls for the complete closure of the whole railway system.
What are the facts of the closed shop within the railway industry? Currently, about 225,000 men are employed by British Rail. Since 1975, the effective date of the implementation of the closed shop agreement, there have been employed by British Rail perhaps something approaching 500,000 men, given the staff turnover in a five-year period. In the whole of that five-year period, amongst the hundreds of thousands of employees, I wonder how many Conservative Members can tell me how many railwaymen have applied for exemption from union membership on religious grounds. There have been 30 applications from about 500,000 men.

Mr. John Browne: That is not relevant.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not relevant, but it is extremely relevant in regard to this industry, as I hope to illustrate shortly.
Of those 30 men, 19 have been granted exemption and continue to work for British Rail, paying the equivalent of their union subscriptions to a charity of their own choice. Out of the 500,000 men, there have been 11 dismissals under the closed shop arrangements. That is hardly the kind of union tyranny so fondly referred to by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Richard Needham: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House, therefore, why these 11 people needed to be dismissed? If 19 could be granted exemption on religious grounds, as he said, and it is such a small number out of the total, why worry about the 11? Why make such a great issue of it?

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down and shut up for a couple of minutes, I shall try to do just that and to answer that question. He must give me a chance to do so.
The Prime Minister herself will have to look a little harder to find those
millions of British workers who go in fear of union power.
There are certainly not millions of railwaymen, or even thousands or hundreds, or even tens, who go in fear of union power in respect of the three railway unions. On the point that the hon. Member has just made, let me say, as a member of the NUR, that I find it regrettable that 11 people have had to lose their jobs—for any reason whatsoever. But, given the present Government's policies and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are likely to lose their jobs as a direct result of the Tory Party's policy, I find the Conservatives' concern for these 11 would-be martyrs to be somewhat disconcerting. I shall try to deal with that point.
It could, perhaps, have been that a little more understanding might have been extended to the 11 so that those who were in the railway industry could have understood their difficulties. But even the question of religious exemption, which was the criterion laid down previously, is by no means a black and white issue. There is no church or sect, including groups such as the Plymouth Brethren and the Exclusive Brethren, which specifically forbids its members to join a trade union, although the two to which I have referred specifically advise against it. If such a matter is to be left to the decisions and the consciences of individuals concerned, there must be some sort of procedure by which both sides, management and unions, can satisfy themselves that there is a genuine religious objection on the part of someone who says that he does not wish to join a trade union.
In the case of the majority of the 30 who applied to be exempt, that is what was done. The finding was that there was a genuine religious conviction which prevented the 19 from joining a union. But in any appeals procedure one has the problem of matters of judgment about both personality and motivation. How does one decide what is a genuine objection to union membership on religious grounds?
The Bill, however, does not even deal with that aspect of people who fail to join a trade union. It does not even attempt to define or to lay down some sort of guidelines concerning these sorts of

objections or any other sort. It merely trots out a very wide-ranging provision when it talks about
grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal conviction.
It is the belief of the majority of railwaymen—at least, the majority that I know and have met—that the deeply held personal conviction held by most of the 11 who were dismissed for not joining a trade union was a desire to avoid paying their union dues to anybody. [Interruption]. I am asked how I know that. We only know that and we have only arrived at such a conclusion by holding various hearings, which have been attended by top-rank representatives of management and the trade unions, and personally interviewing the majority of the 30 applicants for exemption.
It was the unanimous belief of both sides, management and the unions, that the motive of the bulk of the 11 would-be martyrs was a desire to avoid paying their union subscriptions or, in the case of a few of them, represented a continuing saga of disagreement between the individual and his trade union.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, why does he object to the Bill, which introduces grounds of conscience or other deeply held conviction? If the hon. Gentleman found a railway man who had a deeply held personal conviction against being a member of the NUR, would he be happy to see him continue to be employed?

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is so anxious to make a point that he does not listen. I have already said that, but how can it be determined whether a man has a deep-rooted and genuine objection? How is it possible to exclude the people I have mentioned? There are a handful of people in any industry who have a deep-rooted and virtually religious conviction that they should not pay anything to anybody. They have a deep-rooted and personal conviction that they should not put their hand in their pocket. The union subscription in the railway industry is about 50p a week, but they will not pay that to a trade union or a charity of their choice.

Mr. John Prescott: Or in tax.

Mr. Snape: Or in tax for that matter.

Mr. Prescott: Unless they are forced to pay.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—

Mr. Snape: I am still trying to reply to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, which is difficult enough without being interrupted.

Mr. Lyell: Mr. Lyell rose—

Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) has had more than a fair crack of the whip. He has already tried to intervene twice during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, and he appear extremely anxious to avoid considering my point. It is difficult to define a genuine conviction, religious or otherwise. Unions and management in the railway industry over the years have tried to adopt a fair and agreed process to deal with these people. The three would-be martyrs at the European Court of Justice have the best wishes of unions and management. We do not believe that they have deeply held personal convictions, and two of them have a history of non-stop disagreement with their union. The railway industry is happy to let them be martyrs if that is what they want.
When the first union membership agreement came into force on the railways, management and unions bent over backwards to give a fair hearing to anybody who felt that he had reasonable grounds for objecting to membership. However, clause 6 is a parasites' charter. It will enable those who have no intention of paying their union dues to benefit from agreements that the union has achieved.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Free riders.

Mr. Snape: Yes, freeloaders. When we talk of industrial relations, the eyes of many Conservative Members glaze over. They believe that the trade union movement is led by wicked Marxists who ring Moscow for their orders every morning and are determined to bring Britain to its knees. It appears to me that the more extreme are the views held by certain Conservative Members, the less industrial experience they have. There is a direct corollary. The most vociferous union critics on the Conservative Benches belong to the biggest and best closed

shop in the United Kingdom—the lawyers. I do not know of any one of them who has industrial experience.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) is not in his place, as he is one of the few Tory Members who works for a living. He runs a successful company that is a competitor of British Rail's cross-Channel Sealink service. He should be here to give the Government the benefit of his knowledge on clause 6. Like British Rail, its competitor, Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries is a closed shop. Although the hon. Member for Dorking is better qualified than I am to talk of that company, I believe that it has operated a closed shop since 1976. I do not think that the Tories will hear a great deal of objection from the hon. Gentleman to the operation of such a closed shop. He would be the first to tell them that it has worked extremely well in that industry, as it has in ours.
The Conservative Party, having launched the biggest onslaught on living standards since the 1920s, is now attempting to break the power of the trade union movement to resist that attack. It is aided and abetted by such rag-tag organisations as the National Association for Freedom, which is determined to bring down the trade union movement, but it will take more than a bunch of butchers, bakers or candlestick makers to break the back of the trade union movement. We have fought worthier opponents over the years and are still in business. That organisation frequently sends me its monthly newspaper, so I do not want the Tories to feel that I am as biased for the unions as they are against them. It is a bit of a struggle, but I read that publication.
I say to the National Association for Freedom, as I have said to the Tory Party, that it appears to have little knowledge of industry or business. In its short history it appears to have been devoted to busting up the Labour Party through its activities in the Newham, North-East constituency some time ago or in its support for the so-called martyrs in my industry. It appears to have no genuine desire to see trade unions build up the sort of relationship that would benefit all, and wishes to return to what it believes are the halcyon days after the First World War. The clock stopped for that


association in 1922. It gives us the example of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who distinguished himself—I would say, disgraced himself—at Grunwick, but is the wrong sort of example for the railways.
There are precious few hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who know anything about industrial relations, but those of us here who do will oppose clause 6. If the Solicitor-General goes ahead with these proposals, he will cause dissension for the future. Many senior members of management in nationalised and private industries, possibly quietly over a drink and not publicly, believe that the closed shop is good for their industries.
During the recent CBI conference, the British Railways Board member for industrial relations, Mr. Clifford Rose, who is an enlightened individual although we disagree with him fairly frequently, was the first to say that he was against the resolution regrettably carried at the conference and was in favour of the closed shop. I should like to conclude by quoting the close of his peroration at the conference. He said:
Let us stop indulging ourselves in self-righteous indignation and put some of the steam generated by this issue".
—that is, the closed shop—
into real efforts to improve communication with the workforce".
So say all of us in the railway unions. If hon. Members opposite would like to have some industrial experience, we shall be delighted to see them at Unity House. We can fix all of them up with jobs on the Southern region within six weeks, and they will then see the practical difficulties that working railwaymen face every day of their lives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I think that it is near enough to 7 o'clock to announce to the House that we shall be operating the 10-minute rule.

Mr. David Madel: I am delighted to be the first hon. Member on these Benches to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on their excellent and fluent maiden speeches. The House will

be grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley on the time spent by firms on industrial relations and the necessity to improve them so that more time can be spent on other matters. The House will also greatly appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said about the problems of the railway industry and the difficulties of commuters in the London area. We look forward to hearing further from my hon. Friends. We are operating under the 10-minute rule and I will be brief.
I welcome the Bill. It is carefully thought out and it is not a surprise. Much of its construction took place between 1975 and 1979 when we, in Opposition, put forward amendments to the Employment Protection Bill, the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill and the other legislation that was enacted. I am particularly glad that the Bill has been introduced in December, thereby enabling the Committee stage to start in January. That is in sharp contrast, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will recall, to when the Employment Protection Bill was started with a great rush in April 1975. It did not reach the Committee stage until May and we were required to get through it by July. No such speed and haste exists in this Bill, and that cannot but be good for the whole parliamentary process.
I should like to say one or two words about the codes of practice on the improvement of industrial relations. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to introduce codes of practice. That is particularly welcome because the codes concern the improvement of industrial relations. Clause 2(3) requires the Secretary of State, if necessary, to modify such codes after he has heard representations. Section 6 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 remains intact, giving ACAS the power to do the self-same thing, namely, to introduce codes of practice for the improvement of industrial relations. Indeed, clause 2(8) is written in exactly the same way as section 6(11) of the 1975 Act—the words are virtually identical. It is no bad thing that both the Secretary of State and ACAS can, from time to time, introduce these codes of practice. Each will learn from the other, and each gives a double opportunity to make representation when the draft codes are brought forward.


The draft codes will spark the interest and lead to constructive debate.
I am sure that the Government realise that if they propose to end codes of practice on the improvement of industrial relations, regard should be paid to schedule 17 to the 1975 Act, which places the onus on the Government to say when a code of practice ceases to have effect. They cannot say that they are not fond of a certain practice, but they should say when it ceases to have effect.
I am glad that clause 16 gets rid of the recognition procedure which ACAS was finding impossibly difficult to use. In this case the Government and the TUC have worked together. In response to our working document, the TUC said that it preferred to see recognition disputes resolved by voluntary methods. Under the 1975 Act—still intact—ACAS can do so by conciliation, inquiry or advice. Therefore, removing those sections of the 1975 Act will improve matters and lay greater emphasis on the conciliation role of ACAS.
In Committee we must give further consideration to clause 1(3)(c) and (d). Under paragraph (c) it is stated that the ballots and the money can be given for
electing a person to any post which he will hold as an employee of a trade union".
Will the money cover the election addresses of those standing for the particular post? I wonder whether a draft scheme will be put forward first and then the final scheme. What happens with regard to expenses and costs where an employer contributes to the costs of the ballot by allowing use to be made of the workplace, and so on? We should examine those matters carefully in Committee.
However, paragraph (d) can be nothing but welcome to the trade union movement. It refers to
amending the rules of a trade union".
I hope that the trade unions will make use of that. I hope, too, that they will hold a ballot on whether the members want to use the ballot procedure. I should like to see the use of ballots on the question whether or not unions should build into the negotiating procedure an automatic recourse to arbitration if they are running into industrial difficulties with employers. We should empasise that the

matter is entirely voluntary and that there is nothing to be lost by the unions requesting the opinion of their members by using paragraph (d).
Clauses 6 and 13 may be broadly described as the conscience clauses. The argument about unreasonable expulsion from a union or whether one should have a conscientious objection has been going on since the Donovan report of 1968. The majority on that Commission thought that the conscience clause should apply. Before 1968 about 1 per cent. were not members of a union but worked perfectly happily alongside the overwhelming majority of the work force who were members of a union.
Examples of genuine conscientious objections to joining unions were discussed in 1975. Let me restate them. A person may object to a highly politicised style of leadership of a particular trade union. A person may object because a trade union has not represented him or her properly in the past, in that it has been either inefficient or slack in a matter or a dispute taken to an industrial tribunal. A person—man or woman—may object to a trade union because it is slow and slack in carrying out provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. All of these examples are reasonable grounds of conscientious objection to joining a trade union. Week after week in 1975 those points were put to the Ministers. Not once did they say "impossible", "unreasonable" or "unfair". They virtually agreed with us when we spelt out those examples.
Under Clause 10, I am most concerned about an employee giving written confirmation of her intention to return to work. Section 47(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 states that
an employee may postpone her return to work until a date not exceeding four weeks from the notified day of return".
That qualification was put in because we were anxious about women who had difficult pregnancies. I hope that we can examine the matter in greater detail in Committee.
On Clause 7, I ask the Government to consider whether the unfair dismissal procedure should apply to all small firms rather than just those that are starting out. If more jobs and opportunities are to be created, we should include all small


firms. We know the cause of conflict in the 1970s—the difficulty of marrying the relationship between improving industrial relations and collective bargaining. We should place more emphasis on improving industrial relations. In the past, laws have placed too much emphasis on the extension of collective bargaining. The Bill is correct—it puts the emphasis on improving industrial relations. It does not wipe out collective bargaining but it says that the improvement of industrial relations should take precedence. That is wholly good for the country.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw the attention of the Chair to the gross unfairness of the 10-minute rule that is now being applied, so far as it affects minority parties? It cannot affect the debate and, therefore, I cannot be said to be arguing a personal point of view.
However, I believe that it is necessary to make two points that should be considered with regard to future debates, since I understand that the job of the Chair is to protect all hon. Members. First, it is highly debatable whether the 10-Minute rule should apply to the Second Reading of a Bill where speakers have to argue various clauses. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) that was gabbled through to bring it within 10 minutes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member come to the point? We are wasting the time of other hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Smith: My second point is that members of minority parties should have some rights. If we are not called before 7 o'clock, we are faced with the position, on behalf of a substantial minority of electors in the country, of trying to state a case in 10 minutes on a Bill with 16 clauses. That is grossly unfair and a denial of rights to minority parties in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rule applies only to the Second Reading of Bills. I think that the minority parties get a fair share of the time of the House, but I do not wish to go into that now.

Mr. Giles Radice: The Secretary of State, who is a modest man, has called his Bill modest, but in some respects it is more mean than modest.
Clause 5 removes from the employer the onus of proof in unfair dismissal cases. Clause 7 modifies the unfair dismissals obligations for small firms. Clause 8 abolishes the minimum award in unfair dismissal cases. Clauses 10 and 11 weaken maternity rights. Clause 12 limits guarantee payments and clause 16 removes the recognition provisions of the Employment Protection Act and puts nothing in its place, and also abolishes schedule 11 to that Act. These are all mean-minded measures which, taken with the July statutory orders, will make the lives of employees far more difficult.
In one sense, the Secretary of State is right. "Modest" is an accurate description of the Bill. In contrast to the ambitious claims made for the Industrial Relations Act, the Secretary of State does not even pretend that the Bill will do much to improve industrial relations or make the economy more efficient.
The Bill must therefore be judged by far more prosaic criteria—are its objectives right, will it work, what will be its cost and its benefits?
I am in favour of the provisions on balloting, particularly for trade union appointments. However, I warn the Secretary of State, as have my hon. Friends, that ballots concerned with disputes do not always lead to the results that the right hon. Gentleman wants—as we saw in 1972. Ballots cannot be a panacea, but they can prevent trade union leaders going out on a limb and can strengthen them when they have massive support behind them. They can give them the confidence that comes from overwhelming support.
The two most contentious issues in the Bill are those concerned with the closed shop and picketing. There are two strong arguments in favour of closed shops. First, by closing up trade union organisation they give trade unions and their members additional power. That is the argument from the employees' point of view.
Secondly, because unions speak for all employees, the organisation issue is settled and that benefits industrial relations.


That is why many employers support closed shops. Indeed, the Warwick university survey shows that the majority of closed shops introduced in manufacturing industry since 1974 have been initiated by employers rather than by trade unions. So much for the media distortion that overbearing trade unions are forcing closed shops on reluctant employers. That is not the case.
The only respectable argument against closed shops is the libertarian one, though the argument is far less relevant in this context, because without collective organisation employees are in a weaker position. Indeed, they are powerless. The greater the collective organisation, the better protected the employee.
However, as the TUC has pointed out in its advice on closed shops to affiliated unions, many closed shop arrangements are flexible. The Department of Employ-men survey quoted by the Secretary of State shows that many closed shop agreements exempt not only new entrants who object on religious grounds but those who object on conscientious grounds and those with particular positions in a firm.
The survey also shows that two-thirds of the agreements negotiated since 1974 exempt existing non-union members from joining a trade union when a closed shop is introduced. In addition, I understand that the survey showed that since 1974 only about 100 workers, out of the many millions covered by closed shop agreements, have been dismissed. I also understand that the Government have sought to suppress that finding, because it would be inconvenient for their argument that this is a major problem. It is not, and the Government know that it is not.
The Government's proposals to widen the exemptions are objectionable on two main grounds. It is one thing for employers and trade unions to agree on what constitutes conscientious objection and deeply held conviction, but it is another to arrive at a definition that would stand up in an industrial tribunal which is, after all, a court of law. The CBI has pointed out that fact to the Government and I hope that they will take it on board.
The second problem is the provision that will allow an employee to object

not just to being a member of any trade union but to being a member of a particular trade union. That will lead to disruption of existing bargaining arrangements and it could lead to a growth in multi-unionism—something which Tory spokesmen always claim to be against. That is why the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Institute of Personnel Management have reminded the Government of the weakness of that provision. I hope that the Government will reconsider it.
Those two main provisions on the closed shop are likely to damage, rather than improve, industrial relations. The approach advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) of relying on TUC guidance, which ought, in my view, to be backed up by a code of practice, is far superior.
The existing law relating to picketing is limited and, in some respects, unclear. We rely for its enforcement on the good sense of trade unions and trade unionists and the police. For the most part, it has worked well. Trade unionists are able to put across their case, and the police ensure that public order is maintained.
The Bill's provisions are too restrictive. It is wrong that workers will not be able to picket other plants of the same company or customers and suppliers. Until now, those practices have been considered by both sides of industry to be entirely legitimate, and they are being restricted by the Bill. In addition, the new provisions on unlicensed pickets will either involve the police or be largely ineffective. Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is right. Reliance on TUC advice and the support of a code of practice is a far better approach.
In conclusion, this is a modest Bill which, to misquote Winston Churchill, has plenty to be modest about. Its two most contentious provisions will do little to help industrial relations and will prove unworkable. Most regrettable of all is the fact that the Bill will do little to improve collective bargaining or to help productivity, and nothing to increase industrial democracy and worker participation. Nothing is more indicative of the Government's attitude to industrial relations than the thumbs down that they gave last week to the experiments in industrial democracy in the Post Office. Those


are the main reasons, though there are others, why I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill tonight.

Mr. John Gorst: The essence of what I want to say is that there is a need to establish that the law has a role to play in industrial relations, and that constant trade union propaganda has established insidiously that the law does not have such a role, which is absolute nonsense. Practically every democracy has a comprehensive corpus of trade union law. The experience of those countries shows that it does not lead to extensive litigation and that it does not produce widespread ill feeling.
Indeed, it has been proved in other countries that such law has positive advantages. Certainty replaces vagueness. People know the rules of the game, and the players in the game—if I may call it that—cannot constantly keep on inventing different rules. The rule of law is not designed to destroy trade unions. It is designed to create order, fairness and certainty, and the last of those is the most important. Only idiots want to send trade unionists to gaol, and only idiotic trade unionists want to go there. If there are any such idiots, they are probably idiots because they want to be agitators, and they will probably go to gaol anyhow because of that.
There is an argument that one should do nothing. There are two good reasons why we should not accept that. First, we can learn from the Labour Government's experience. Did their way produce peace or result in harmonious relationships? Did it save the community from the serious disruption of last winter? It did not. On the contrary, their way helped to induce and provide disruption and disorder.
Explaining why that happened brings me to the second of my reasons. Unions, just like employers, are a pressure group. Each has different interests, and so that oppose each other. When they have quarrels, friction and conflict are bound to arise, and when that happens there must be a set of ground rules by which matters will be handled. Of course democratic societies are perfectly capable of containing conflict, but only if there are rules which tell people how they should conduct themselves. We do not have a sufficiently comprehensive legal

structure in this country. That is why I welcome all the measures proposed in the Bill. I do not believe that they can do any harm, and I hope that they will—as they must—do a certain amount of good.
A number of areas are crying out for attention. On the one hand, there is a degree of uncertainty about what is the exact legal position in some respects. On the other, there is no legal position. This state of uncertainty inevitably favours irresponsible union militancy, and so there is a structure which, in certain circumstances, can be positively damaging.
Hon. Members may want to know what further legislation we should try to introduce. It would be idle for me, with so little time, to try to recite the details of some three or four Bills that would possibly be needed, but I can indicate their general direction. First, they should all concern legal immunity, and they should not abridge the right of people to withhold their labour—to go on strike. The right to strike is fundamental and is virtually inalienable. To abridge the right to strike would be morally wrong as well as totally impracticable.
The kind of immunity of which I am talking and which I do not want is the ability of a trade union—its officers and members—to pursue a dispute in such a way as to do certain unacceptable things—to cause grievous damage to the public or to employers, not because of a strike but because of actions that flow from a strike. I am thinking of picketing, blacking and the exertion of pressures on suppliers or on customers. There is no justification for any legal immunity that inconveniences the nation or damages commercially an enterprise for which an employee does not work.
The steps that the Government should take can be easily summarised. They should consider introducing a Bill stating quite simply that trade unions are corporations and that trade unions have the same rights as corporations. In view of the lack of ability to sue for libel, they may wish to have that. But it should also state that trade unions have the same duties as corporations, which at present they do not.
The present position is grossly anomalous, and is certainly so by comparison with international practice. Britain is the


only country that sanctions trade unions to have a non-legal status. In effect, our law says that unions are not individuals, that they are not companies, that they need not pay taxes, that they cannot be sued and that they can have power without curbs. Whereas the withdrawal of labour is perfectly reasonable as a way of conducting a dispute, practically everything else is not, and practically everything else is at present also legal.
The Bill may go some way towards stopping up a hole, but it will not fill that hole. The Government deserve credit for what they have achieved already. The trade union movement, for example, is not currently engaged in widespread militant obstruction, but that does not mean that there is no need for a legal framework beyond what is now proposed. Nor does it mean that we should wait for militants to go on the rampage at some future date before we take action.
The Government deserve credit for the quieter mood in industrial relations. It is quieter because the Government have approached the problem resolutely, because they have refused to bail out troubled public industries, because they have refused to print money, because they have defied unpopularity and, above all, because they have done what is right. This courage has paid off. It has impressed the trade union movement and it has laid foundation for a framework of sanity. In short, the Government have changed today's climate of industrial relations.
However, the Bill is less than a third of a loaf. Unlike some other loaves that have recently been on offer and have rightly been rejected, this Bill is acceptable, but only if there is more bread to come, and only if tomorrow's loaf is baked considerably larger than the one that we have before us this afternoon.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I begin by taking issue with the Secretary of State. The philosophy he advanced is one we have heard on many occasions. It is that the balance has been lost, that it has been tipped in favour of the trade unions and the workers and against the employer. That is a very old argument. It was the argument that was

used by the American employers at the end of the Second World War. As a result, various pieces of legislation were introduced that have been a millstone round the necks of the American trade unionists. The important point about their argument is that it is not true. Can anyone honestly say that the balance has so tipped in favour of the workers that they have only to threaten strike action or carry out secondary picketing in order that the employers cave in and the workers get automatically what they have demanded?
That is a false picture of the reality in industrial life in Britain. The balance is still in favour of the employers against the workers and the trade unionists. It has always been so. Despite the excellent legislation brought in by the previous Labour Government, which helps to redress the balance up to a point, the balance between workers and their employers is still basically the same as it always has been.
I say to the Secretary of State that we have been here before. We had the same argument over the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Of course, the Government have learnt something since that Act. First, they dress the Bill as though it is a moderate or modest proposition. They say that it is not similar to the Industrial Relations Act, that there are only a few changes being made here and there and that we do not have to worry. The truth is that if the legislation goes through we shall see, within a short time, how immodest the legislation is and how it will damage, hurt and weaken the trade union movement. That is what the Bill is designed to do: it is designed to weaken the trade union movement.
When the Secretary of State, the Government and the Prime Minister decide that they will do certain things on behalf of those they represent, they do them. It would be a jolly good thing, sometimes—and I say this to my hon. Friends—if, when we were in Government, we did them as well. There may well be a U-turn. I am not saying that there will not be a U-turn. What I am saying is that up to now the Government's whole policy has proved to be an utter disaster for ordinary working people, but at the same time it is beneficial to those who own and control industry. That is part and parcel of the scheme to weaken the


trade union movement at the expense of working people.
I turn to the question of secondary picketing. It has always been understood that when involved in an industrial dispute one could picket in any part of a company. In addition, one could actually call on the members of one's union to come out and give assistance on the picket lines. One could call on other sections of workers to show their solidarity.
Clause 14 is the most serious attack on the trade union movement. It will undermine the whole basis of peaceful picketing. One of my hon. Friends said that it was a charter for the industrial militants. Those who wish to break the law will still join the picket lines. It will not stop the pickets but will have the opposite effect.
If I were on the shop floor and fellow workers said to me "We are involved in a dispute and we need your assistance", I would join the picket line to help my fellow workers. I would not hesitate to do so. When one is involved in a struggle, one has to win. I listened to the argument about the lads who fought in the transport dispute during the winter, and there were terrible cries about their secondary picketing. I remember watching on television a lad looking over the M6 somewhere near Warrington. The question was put to him "Why are you doing this?" He said "We are in a battle, and when you are in a battle you have to win." Hon. Members who have served in regiments should know what that means. When one is in a fight to win better conditions, it is the same thing as fighting for a regiment. One is out to win.
That is the whole point of the closed shop. People must not be allowed to desert in the face of a struggle. They are involved in a battle, and one connot expect trade unionists not to fight for a closed shop.
We have debated these issues time after time, and we will debate them again. I say to the Secretary of State that it is an illusion on his part, and on his Government's part, to believe that the trade union movement will sit down and allow the closed shop to disappear. It will not.
The Government claim that the trade unions are in support of the Bill. I

remember that that was said in the debates on the Industrial Relations Act. I remember Conservative hon. Members saying that the workers and the trade unions were all in favour of the Act. The result was that the demonstrations and struggles against the Industrial Relations Act were the biggest that the country has ever seen.
I agree, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), with balloting. No one is opposed to balloting, but we consider the provisions proposed in the Bill to be the first step towards something more than balloting. If unions wish to carry out ballots, they do not need money from the Government. They can do that themselves, and should be encouraged to do so. They do not need the beginnings of Government interference.
I shall not take my 10 minutes. I feel that I have covered the basic points that I wished to make. I conclude by saying to the Government "Prepare for a struggle on this issue, and not only in the House. We shall fight the Bill line by line in every way". I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend saying that we would repeal the Bill and—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, he did not"] If he did not say that, he ought to have done. I will say it for him on behalf of the Labour Party—the Bill will be repealed. Any decent parts that may emerge from it may be incorporated in future legislation on the basis of experience. There will he no hesitation on our part: it will go as the Industrial Relations Act went. We shall not hesitate when we are in Government.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I have been fascinated while listening to Opposition speakers. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) accused my right hon. Friend of having introduced an immodest Bill. I should have thought that some of his suggestions were in even more immodest and intemperate language. A statement such as "when one is involved in a struggle one has to win" presumably meant whatever the cost and whatever the hurt to the innocent. Those who have been involved in a war will know of the injuries caused to the innocent and the question of whether they should be part of any battle.
After listening to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) I can only surmise that he had the wrong script. He had the script from 1971, and he was talking of a totally different Bill from that which we are discussing today. The Bill is sensible and moderate in its approach to a central problem in our society. That problem is the control within responsible bounds of the use of power in the hands of sections of our community. As my right hon. Friend said, the Bill deals with the problem in a pragmatic way and on a basis of principle.
The sensible nature of the Bill lies in the fact that it does not so much dictate as suggest, that it does not so much coerce as facilitate, that it does not so much legislate a form of industrial relations as suggest limits. It is in setting limits that the Bill fits into the whole pattern of our society, because freedoms and liberties, whether of individuals or of sections of society, must be limited if they are not to damage others.
That is why not just I but the vast majority of people in Scotland welcome the Bill—because it suggests and facilitates its own implementation, and it protects people from unfair exploitation.
Much has been said about the provisions relating to the ballot, and I have one or two comments about that. Most importantly, the ballot is to be no inefficient employer's charter. It seems to be suggested by the Opposition that the ballot provisions have been put into the Bill to damage the trade unions. I do not believe that for a moment.
The whole purpose of a ballot is to allow those who are voting to exercise a mature rather than an instant consideration. Part of that mature consideration will be the ability of the employer to persuade his workpeople to take a particular course of action. If an employer is to use the ballot efficiently, there will be an onus on him to open his windows, to open his books to those who work for him in order to persuade them that a particular course of action in a ballot is right. I believe that that sort of participation, which a ballot of this kind can engender, will prove to be one of the most constructive results of the Bill.
I, too, do not wish to take up all my time tonight, so I turn briefly now to the

question of the closed shop. The Opposition have held this out as some savage attack by the Conservative Party on the rights of trade unions, and they have defended their position in a particular way. They have said that we on the Government Benches have not realised that employers like closed shops. To my mind, that is perhaps the worst argument of all, since this is one of the few areas in the law that I know of where an employer can unilaterally and with impunity breach a contract of employment with an employee. In my view, the state of the law in that respect should not be allowed to continue, and, if anything the fact that employers and unions happen to be agreeing and working hand in hand on these matters makes the wrong and injury done to the individual even worse.
Closed shops, however infrequently they happen, can transgress individual rights because, by their nature, they can operate without control and at present, apart from religion, without criteria and without compensation. They can destroy the life and future of an individual. They can demand conformity where that is desired or they can on occasion, at their own discretion, reject the conformity that is offered to them by people who wish to join a union. I believe that in our society that, too, is unacceptable.
When almost universally we condemn in totalitarian States their persecution of dissidents, it is very difficult for us to turn a blind eye to a different sort of persecution of people with their own particular convictions in our society. I therefore welcome that part of the Bill also as providing for another extension of the liberties of the individual, for which we on this side at least stand.
As I said at the outset, in practice the Bill is moderate. Its main contribution is not on the detail that it legislates but on the more open and fair atmosphere that it can create by inviting people to come out of the jungle of present industrial relations into a more civilised and generally acceptable arena where the argument can be won on reason rather than on emotion.
This is a Bill which increases liberty precisely because it constrains power. History has taught us that only by the constraint of power are the freedom and liberty of individuals ever increased.


I think that it was Solzhenitsyn who once said to people here in the West "It is not your liberty I criticise; it is the way you surrender it step by step." I believe that the Bill is the first step on the way back to regaining some of that liberty which we have surrendered in the past.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I oppose the Bill because I believe that it will damage industrial relations, and I say that having spent almost all my adult working life involved in industrial relations. It flows from a Tory manifesto commitment and the belief, expressed in that manifesto, that industrial relations could be improved by restrictive legislation. We have just heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) assert that. He put it in somewhat philosophical terms but assert it he did none the less.
The truth is quite otherwise. The Industrial Relations Act 1971 proved that. I believe that the Bill has no foundation in an informed analysis of our present problems in industrial relations. It simply expresses the collective prejudices of the Tory Party in the country, to which right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches are now bowing. Clearly, the Tory Party has learnt nothing from its experience of the 1971 Act. It is insisting on reasserting its dislike of the trade union movement.
I turn now to two specific provisions of the Bill, those on secret ballots and on picketing. Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for public funds to be used for secret ballots for trade union elections, for amendment of rules and for calling and ending strikes and other industrial actions. We are told that that will cost £1 million in the first year and £2 million in a full year. I cannot understand why the Government propose that money should be spent in this way. The trade union movement has not asked for it, and there is no evidence that the trade union movement cannot afford to run secret ballots. The record in this respect is clear. Trade unions use ballots very widely, and, so far as I am aware, there has never been any suggestion that they are not able to fund them.
Many unions call strikes only if that action has been confirmed as the wish of

the members through the use of the secret ballot. We have heard nothing from the Government Benches about the recent ballots in, for example, the milling industry, which demonstrates the truth of what I say.
There has to be aright on the part of the national executive council of a trade union to call and end strikes, and I am worried about the effect of the Bill in that respect. Conservative Members are fond of suggesting that trade union leaders are not responsive to their members and that their management of their unions is not all that it should be. Such claims are most unfair, because it is the right of national executives to call strikes or to end them, and very often, before ballots can be considered, even in unions where ballots are the rule, there can be a spontaneous reaction from the membership to a given situation and the trade union leadership has then to deal with that.
There can come a point, even in an angry situation, when trade union leaders must exercise judgment about ending a strike without reference to a ballot. I believe that that is right. It can be proper and it can be very responsible. In fact, that is what is done at present. The Bill, on the other hand, will undermine the authority of trade union leaders in a way which will not be helpful to industrial relations.
Many trade unions appoint their national executives by secret ballot. In the union that I worked for, I was responsible, along with others, for conducting an annual election to elect the national executive by secret ballot, with every member having a vote. At the same time, I was responsible for the organisation of ballots to deal with the calling and ending of strikes.
Not once did I hear a complaint from any member of the union for which I worked to the effect that the elections were not conducted properly or that the ballots were not conducted properly. Neither did I hear anyone suggest that public money would in some way or other improve the elections or ballots. I never heard that once, and I believe that the Bill is thoroughly mistaken in its provisions in that respect.
What lies behind these proposals is the suggestion that trade unions are undemocratic and that they do not follow true trade union practices, notwithstanding


that the major trade unions in this country conduct elections for their major offices. This is certainly true of the Transport and General Workers Union, the General and Municipal Workers Union and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. It is true also that NALGO elects its national executive on the basis of annual ballot.
The suggestion that the trade union movement is deficient in its democratic procedures and can be improved by the measures in the Bill is unfair. That is one of the ignorant assumptions that are made. There is no case for the use of public money for this purpose. There is no demand from trade unions that such money should be used for the purpose. There is no public demand for spending public money in such a way. The assumptions that are made in the Bill in that respect are erroneous.
The proposals on picketing are not consistent with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Conservative Party in recent times. The Conservative Party is fond of presenting itself as the party of freedom, the defender of democracy and the upholder of individual liberty. However, in clause 14 there is proposed an erosion of civil liberty. The clause will restrict the activities and involvement of working people in pursuance of a trade dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) demonstrated that it would not be possible for the employees of a company to go to another plant owned by the same company to picket. That seems to be an erosion of the liberty of trade unionists. It is putting trade unionists in a special position within the law, and I find that unacceptable.
The proposal is contrary to the advice of the TUC. It is contrary to the guidelines that it set out. Therefore, it undermines the authority of the TUC. Further, it undermines the authority of trade union officers who may be advising against secondary picketing in a particular circumstance. All those features detract from the intention of the Bill, which is, I suppose, to improve industrial relations. However, it is mistaken in its approach. The provisions on secondary picketing are deeply offensive to the principles that are often claimed by Conservative Members.
I believe that workers will scorn the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) was right in that respect. The Bill is an attack on the principles of trade unionism. It is offensive to the democratic principles of the trade union movement and of the country generally. It will reduce freedom. Indeed, it is an attack on freedom. The fact that 12 million trade unionists are to be put in a special position in the conduct of trade disputes is contrary to the principles of democratic freedom.
The Government are introducing a Bill that places restrictions on working people. The restrictions are of a sort that I believe to be deeply offensive. The Bill will be deeply offensive to people throughout the country. I do not accept that there is widespread support for the measure. That will be demonstrated during the next few months as the Bill passes through Parliament and we learn of the attitude of Britain's working people. It will come to be recognised that the Bill is mistaken in its assumptions and irrelevant to the needs of the trade unions.
The Bill is damaging to industrial relations and it will be of no assistance to those who are working hard to create the best sort of industrial relations which, of course, will aid our economic recovery.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, not least because I consider that the legislation proposed is essential if we are to restore the balance in industrial relations.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on honouring the clear commitments that were made during the recent general election. I am convinced that the Bill will be widely welcomed by British industry and that its effect will correct the imbalance that has evolved from the vagaries of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and the Employment Protection Act 1975.It will have the added advantage of enabling many more employers to be less reticent about increasing their manpower. If those were the only benefits to be gained by the Bill's implementation, it would deserve the full support of the whole House. I have no doubt that that support from Labour Members will not be forthcoming.


I wish that Her Majesty's Opposition had not been so predictable in their denouncements of the Bill and that their arguments had been rather more enlightened. I wish, too, that they had conceded that certain clauses were necessary. If Labour Members do not know now that much of their legislation was a disincentive to increased employment, they have acquired more ostrich characteristics than I gave them credit for having.
The Bill is not meant to be a panacea for all the ills that have beset industrial relations. It is an effective start, however. To some of my hon. Friends it will not be enough. They seem to consider that major surgery is necessary rather than bandaging. I cannot agree. The industrial relations and employment legislation arena is littered with the remnants of those who advocated major surgery. The Industrial Relations Act 1971 is a sad example of that. To restore the balance between the responsibilities and duties of the trade union movement requires necessary but limited changes. To legislate further than is proposed today would be not only foolish but extremely provocative.
My right hon. Friend has no such death wish. He would rather negotiate than seek confrontation. He is to be congratulated on publishing his working papers on the proposed amendments to existing legislation in July, September and October and on seeking the views of both sides of industry before introducing the Bill.
If all else that I say is forgotten, I beg the House to remember that just as the Government do not believe that Her Majesty's Opposition have a monopoly of compassion, so they reject totally that they have a monopoly of understanding of what is wrong in industrial relations, even though they think that they have. The balance that has been referred to is upset by current legislation. That law is counterproductive because it has never really helped the people for whom it was originally designed. In advancing my argument I shall refer to the provisions for funding secret ballots and those relating to secondary picketing.
It was wise not to impose secret ballots on the trade union movement by law

and make them compulsory. Wherever possible, it is much better to encourage trade unionists to take advantage of the extension of democracy by means other than imposition by the statute book. The provision of the necessary capital to allow ballots to take place will mark a significant turning point in the democracy within most unions. That can only be for the good. If we are to continue saying that we believe in strong and responsible trade unions, it is important that responsibility evolves from within the movement as a result of the wider participation of the rank and file members. I emphasise that the provision will benefit most trade unions, because I cannot visualise how it can extend the participation of rink and file trade union members in the two unions which represent the majority of the work force in my constituency, namely, the textile and footwear unions. Both unions have a record that is second to none for good industrial relations. Both are strong and responsible.
The Government do not pretend that the secret ballot is an innovation. It is not that, but it strengthens the case for the Bill when we remember that last month, in an 87 per cent. poll of the members of the National Union of Mineworkers, 113,000 miners voted to accept the National Coal Board's 20 per cent. offer, while 107,000 voted against. In the secret ballot on the Edwards plan for British Leyland, 106,000 Leyland workers voted to accept it, while only 15,000 voted for rejection.
It must be remembered that the Government have a duty to protect those not involved in a dispute who may suffer as a result of industrial action. They also have a responsibility to help prevent behaviour that goes beyond all reason. That includes preventing a repeat of the abuse of picketing that took place last winter, which so distressed the nation. Those events demonstrated the need for greater statutory protection for employers and employees who had no involvement in any dispute but whose businesses and jobs were put at risk.
This legislation does not change the criminal law or make secondary picketing a criminal offence. The Bill will enable an employer to seek an injunction to restrain secondary picketing if it damages


his business. No one wants to see a repetition of such events as occurred last winter, when flying pickets were trying to stop lorries on motorway approaches and when some drivers said that they were being forced into laybys by pickets in cars.
I welcome the fact that this legislation makes clear what is and what is not lawful. That is important. The Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for the interpretation of the law to the chief constables in the country, whose job it will be to enforce the laws that we make here. As the police should not have this difficulty, we must ensure—I must point this out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that the Cabinet give them unqualified support in their difficult task of enforcement.
In the whole of the Bill there is no question of mounting an attack on the basic rights of trade unions. Where is such an attack in the provision of public funds for ballots, for example? The changes that the Bill introduces are limited but vital.
Earlier, when speaking on the Government's wish to encourage a strong and responsible trade union movement, I dwelt on the importance of the word "responsible". I close by emphasising that trade unions will be stronger and will recover the confidence of the public if the law checks the practices and abuses of industrial power which have attracted general condemnation. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale): I must place on record my belief that the choice of speakers in this debate has discriminated against minority parties. I hope, too, that we shall never see a state in this House where hon. Members are penalised for raising points of order.

I welcome the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not imply that he had been put back in the list because he raised a point of order. If he said that, he is completely wrong. I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Smith: If that is the implication of what I said, having put it on the record, I withdraw it.
Having welcomed the Bill, I say that there are some parts of it that need to be amended. Certainly, when we come to Committee or Report stage I hope to see the occasional amendment here or there. On the whole it is a good Bill. It is reasonable and moderate. For that reason it should be supported. In passing, I take the opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the consultation which the Minister of State had before he drew up the Bill—something which is in the interests of good government and the rights of minorities and the majority in the House.
It is nonsense for the trade union movement to get so worked up about the Bill. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) spoke about all that the Bill did not do, how poor it was and why it would not do this and that. I wondered what on earth he found so objectionable about the Bill. If the Bill will do so little, as his speech seemed to indicate, I cannot understand what all the upset is about the Bill.
I believe passionately in individual liberty, but when that liberty interferes with the liberty of other individuals, or when people abuse power which they may have legitimately obtained, it is the job of Parliament, of all bodies, to curtail the abuse of that power and protect the liberty of the individual. That is why the Bill is necessary. That is why basically, although with reservations, it should be accepted and welcomed by the House.
Time does not permit me to deal with all the clauses. However, I should like very briefly to look at one or two of them. First, on the matter of secret ballots, the Bill does not compel any union to hold a ballot if it does not wish. Indeed, if it did so, I should object to the Bill. Ballots are not always attractive. For example, if a ballot is used to call a strike, it follows that there must be a ballot to call it off. Ballot-rigging is not unknown in this country. Therefore, ballots are certainly not a panacea. However, as that clause is entirely voluntary, I cannot see any reason for anyone to take objection.
Let me turn to the issue of the closed shop. I have always held the view—I state it clearly now—that the closed shop was incompatible with individual liberty and freedom. My criticism of the Bill is that it does not go far enough on the matter of the closed shop. Certainly I want workers to become members of trade unions. If the trade union movement is good enough, it will be able to attract those employees into its ranks without forcing them to join against their will. I understand the argument about free riders. That can be overcome by voluntary contributions to charities, which some unions are now making and which have much to commend them. However, it is disgraceful when people who have worked hard for an industry for 30 or 40 years lose their jobs as a consequence of refusing to belong to a union. Anything that can be done to take away that abuse of individual liberty is to be welcomed. If for no other reason than that, I support the Bill.
My greatest reservation is about picketing, as I greatly value individual liberty. Any man or woman has the right to try to persuade others to his or her point of view. However, we must face facts. Last winter there was disgraceful abuse of the right to picket. Hospitals were starved of supplies. Men refused to bury the dead. Textile workers on the docks pleaded for raw textiles so that they could continue to work but were refused supplies by lorry drivers. Who, therefore, in those circumstances, and with that history, can blame a Government for reacting to such a situation?
I should like to see a code of picketing practice voluntarily applied. I understand what brought the Government to this point of view. I remind them of the words of Lord Denning in his dissenting judgment in Hubbard v. Pitt in 1975, in which he argued that the right to picket should not be confined to trade disputes. He said:
Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done.
I could continue to read his judgment, but time does not permit. What worries me about even moving into the area of restricting picketing is the effect that that

could have on other rights of demonstration.
I hope that even at this late stage the TUC may yet put forward proposals that will persuade the Government to drop the clauses on picketing, and which will satisfy the Government that its proposals will be adhered to. I have often said that, and I find it strange that a union will penalise a man for not striking when it instructs him to do so but that it will never penalise a man for striking when it instructs him not to strike. If the TUC could indicate that it has proposals about secondary picketing that could and would be enforced, even by backing them up with a union rule book, there would be great merit in the Government re-examining the clauses on picketing.
I have reservations about that part of clause 8 which states that conduct after dismissal can be taken into account, in terms of unfair dismissal, in tribunal proceedings. The words "after dismissal" should be examined.
I also have reservations about the maternity provisions in the Bill.
I welcome clause 16, especially the proposal to abolish schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975, which has been grossly abused by some unions.
With few exceptions, I welcome the provisions of the Bill. It has its weaknesses, but clearly something has to be done to deal with abuses.
The Bill deals with employment, and rightly so. It is not a Bill for dealing with, or necessarily helping, industrial relations. The Bill is not a panacea for all ills. Good industrial relations entail good management, good communications, proper working conditions and decent wages. They entail partnership between capital and labour and a proper use and distribution of profits. The Bill does not deal with any of those matters. In some ways, therefore, it does not go far enough. However, it seeks to re-balance the scales between employer and trade union, and to protect the rights of individuals and minorities within the trade union movement and in the industrial relations field.
It is not a bad Bill. I shall vote for it this evening, and I shall encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. David Mellor: The Bill represents the very minimum that the


Government can do in the prevailing circumstances. It has nothing to do with pressure from Conservative Members. It is what the country expects, in view of what has happened over the years of Labour government.
I have become accustomed, in the relatively short time that I have been a Member, to Opposition spokesmen stating that every Bill put forward marks the end of civilisation as we know it. The speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—who, alas, is not in the Chamber—was extraordinary. It was the hollow, empty booming of a hollow man. One would like to be able to say, whether it was accurate or not, that it was unworthy of him. It was extraordinary in the light of the present climate of opinion. Are the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends so totally remote from what is being said up and down the land—even within the membership of the trade unions, whose interests exclusively they seem to think they are here to protect and preserve?
As one Labour Member was prepared to admit, the Bill is a modest Bill. In no way is it a repetition of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. In no way does it clear away the evils of the legislation of 1974 and 1975. I understand why that must be so. It is the wish of the Secretary of State not to be provocative. He said movingly in his speech to the Conservative Party conference that he wanted to establish a climate of industrial relations in which people would come out of the trenches and join together. In no place more than in industrial relations do we concentrate too much on matters that divide and not enough on matters that unite.
I should like to have thought that there would be support not only from the Conservative Party or from the party of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). We need support from the Opposition Benches. It is not too late for a change of heart from the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). I live in hope—but I shall probably be disappointed—that there will be some recognition that the aim of the Bill is not to put an end to the trade union movement but to try to do something for the future of the country. The aim is not to play party games but to help to put

the country back on its feet. Are we capable, after all, of recognising the truth of what John Methven said at the CBI conference—that as a nation we are indeed drinking in the "Last Chance" saloon?
The speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield has, unhappily, set the tone of many of the speeches from the Labour Benches. They are the speeches of people who apparently have not read the Bill, and they seem to be directed to people who the speakers sincerely hope will not have read the Bill. No one who had read the Bill could possibly say some of the many things said by Labour Members. No one who had studied the Bill could possibly believe for a moment half the ritual incantations to which we have been subjected tonight.
The position that we find ourselves in as a Government is that the people expect that they shall not have to go through a winter as wretched as the last one. Labour Members do not seem to be able to make up their minds as to quite what is their objection to the Bill—whether it is too draconian or whether it does not cover the points that we are trying to cover. It would help us in meeting their points if only they could decide on what they believe to be wrong with the Bill. It is not good enough to say that it will not work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is placing his trust in good sense. He hopes that somewhere in the upper ranks of the TUC there will be a response. But if there is not and the measure does not cover events such as those that happened outside Charing Cross hospital very recently, we shall have to think again. I believe that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to think again, and we would certainly support him. But there is one thing that the recent events outside Charing Cross hospital have established. They have shown what a lot of nonsense were the much-vaunted TUC guidelines, dredged out at the eleventh hour to try to save the election for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
I should like particularly to touch on the extent to which the legislation of 1974 and 1975 severely damaged individual liberties in this country. Those who are students of hypocrisy in its more


advanced form will have enjoyed the contrast between speeches of Labour Members in this debate and their speeches in the debate on the immigration rules. On that occasion, only a week or so ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was subjected to constant taunts from the Labour Benches, such as "What about the immigration rules and the European Convention on Human Rights?" Well, what about the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the European Convention on Human Rights?
We are about to have a judgment from the European Court. I do not often go in for prediction, but I would wager my parliamentary salary—or some other fairly limited sum such as that—on the proposition that the European Court will have no hesitation in slinging out the whole thing lock, stock and barrel. I am glad that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is with us tonight, because he was one of those who were pressing most the Home Secretary on this point. He asked him what advice the Attorney-General had been giving the Government on that matter. I wonder whether he asked the same question of the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) when he was Attorney-General. Perhaps he would have received an answer showing that the advice of the right hon. and learned Member changed depending on which way the wind blew, just as it did on the Clay Cross issue.
I return briefly from that diversion to welcome three provisions in the Bill. The changing of the burden of proof in industrial tribunals would do a great deal to improve the atmosphere in industrial tribunals. Making the burden of proof neutral would make employers feel less inclined to believe that tribunals were biased against them.
I welcome the abolition of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, because, of all the measures carried through by the Labour Government, it was that that most employers most feared—not because of anything that they need be ashamed of but because it totally undermined what is at the essential root of our industrial recovery—that is, that an employee's wages should be based on the success of his own enterprise and not on some bogus comparison with the state of the industry generally or of some other specified firm. I am very glad that my

right hon. Friend has not hedged on this one and has thrown the schedule right out.
I also welcome postal balloting. There is no question but that if postal balloting became more widespread we should not be subjected to events such as the recent strike of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. The votes for that strike were almost exclusively from those who were not elected by postal balloting. Those elected by postal balloting were almost exclusively against it.
This measure is offered in a spirit of conciliation, with a genuine wish for reconciliation in industry and for a fresh start appropriate to the imminent beginning of a new decade. The nation will not readily forgive yet more pointless bloodletting of the kind that so disfigured the passage and implementation of the Industrial Relations Act and the opposition to it. What is required now is for people to put party games on one side and to try to think of the country. I should like one or two Opposition Members to recognise the need for that.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I know that we are limited to 10 minutes, but before I speak totally against the Bill I must congratulate the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on their maiden speeches. As a Member who arrived here on 3 May, it gives me pleasure to hear maiden speeches, and though I am limited to 10 minutes I am prepared to give some of that time to congratulating those two new hon. Members. I hope that they will have the opportunity to participate in many more debates.
I oppose the Bill for two basic reasons—first, because it is an attack on organised labour and, therefore, an attack on individual freedom within industry. There cannot be individual freedom without organised labour. Secondly, that is why labour was organised during the last century—to protect individuals working within industry.
I allowed a solicitor to look at the Bill, and he said "Mick, a Philadelphia lawyer could not understand that." Therefore, in Committee, and most probably later in the courts, it will be difficult to understand the Bill. I want to speak


about the Bill as a layman, and I shall not be capable of breaking down every fine point.
My first point is on the payment for ballots. It has been said that the National Union of Mineworkers voted not to accept the recommendation of the national executive committee. That is not so. The miners voted to accept the recommendation of the NEC; it was the members of the NUM who did not. I leave that for hon. Members to think about. Anyone who knows the set-up of the NUM will realise the implications of that.
On the question of expenditure, I should have thought that because of the cuts that have been made by the Government it would be totally wrong for them to say that they will spend £1 million this year and then another £2 million to pay for ballots. That is immoral. That money must come out of the total, so education, social services or housing will have to suffer. It is immoral to cut social services and at the same time be prepared to pay for ballots.
I have taken part in many ballot votes, some of which have been successful for the unions and some have not. The trouble with ballot votes is that if it is thought that the Government are supporting the ballot vote, and are therefore willing to pay for it from the minimum amount allowed, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said, there must be a vote to return to work. That is the great difficulty. If the power workers came out on a ballot vote, and if within 24 hours a settlement was obtained, they would have to be balloted once more. It would take about a week to get them back to work, with the consequent loss of production. I see no reason why the State should pay for this sort of thing. The unions are capable of looking after themselves.
On the matter of changing union rules by ballot vote, I know of no unions that vote for a change of rules, though some Government Members may know of them. Most unions have biannual or yearly conferences and their rules are changed by the delegates who attend those conferences. I do not know of any union that changes its rules by a vote, but there may be some. Anyway, it is

in the Bill that the unions can ballot to change the rules.
It is strange that a Minister should come forward today with a code to improve industrial relations when only last week the Secretary of State for Industry was unable to interfere in the controversy over increased industrial democracy in the postal union next year because the chairman of the Post Office said that he did not want it. Now we have the Employment Bill supposedly aimed at improving industrial relations, yet the Government cannot do anything about improving industrial relations in another area because the chairman of that undertaking does not want it. The unions wanted it but the chairman did not, so it never went ahead.
Clause 3 refers to unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from trade unions. If an appeal goes to the industrial tribunal, the union
shall not be regarded as having acted reasonably only because it has acted in accordance with the requirements of its rules".
That is very strange. In clause 1 the Government are willing to spend money on a ballot of the members to change the rules, yet when it comes to unreasonable dismissal, or refusal to join a union, the rules will not be considered as reasonable. There is a contradiction there somewhere. In one clause the State is willing to spend money to have the rules changed and in another it refuses to accept, or instructs the industrial tribunal not to accept, those rules. I submit that there is something terribly wrong here.
We all know that the Bridlington agreement works very well within the trade union movement when members transfer from one union to another with the agreement of both unions. The Bill will infringe the Bridlington agreement, and as a result there may be inter-union disputes. The Government will have caused the trouble, and later will probably criticise the unions for having industrial disputes.
Clause 6 deals with deeply held convictions about not joining trade unions. I shall give the House two examples, one of which is particularly important. An individual can be badly hurt by believing that the State fully supports him for not joining a union. He may think that when a union calls its members out on strike he will go on working. That is commonly known as scabbing. By that one action


of scabbing that man's whole life may be altered from then on. Believing that the nation supports him, he commits a mortal sin against a trade union, and there is no confession box that he can go to afterwards.
A few years ago an old man died in my constituency. I went into the local for a swift half, and mentioned that this poor old man had died. Normally, miners are very sympathetic, but on this occasion they just sat there. I stood there for a moment and wondered what was wrong. Then one of them told me that that man was a "twenty-sixer". I leave that with hon. Members to reflect upon. That poor old man suffered from that mortal sin from 1926. No law of the land can ever alter that sort of situation.
In another case, a lad called Anthony Flynn, who has since passed away, came to me. He had lost a finger working in a quarry and he came to me to ask me what he should do. I told him to go to his trade union and he replied that he was not in one. I took him to the citizens advice bureau, where he was told off for not being a member of a trade union. On his behalf, I asked for legal aid. We got legal aid and he won his case under common law. My point is that if we will the way we must will the money so that people can fight common law cases on their own behalf. That is another example of where not being a member of a trade union can hurt the individual.
I note that with regard to picketing the phrase
near to his place of work
is often used. That reminds me of a business friend who visited New York each week, who once told me "Paris is near". I do not know how one can define picketing in such circumstances, but that must be settled in law should such cases emerge. Picketing does not help industrial relations all that much, but what is worse is to pass laws that infringe people's rights and which make organised labour do what the law desires instead of the trade union sector and the Government of the day working together, which would be much better. As Jack London always asked, "Will it work"? The Employment Bill is designed to create better industrial relations, but I respectfully submit that it will not work.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Bill before the House contains four major proposals, all of which in my view are desirable. First, it provides for the establishment of a fund from which secret ballots are to be financed. I take that as a very clear example of the determination of the Conservative Goverment to introduce, or extend, democracy into industrial practices. That proposal is one to which no reasonable-minded Member could object. I was very pleased indeed that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) gave that provision somewhat limited support, but support none the less.
The second aspect of the Bill, which in my view deserves unqualified support, relates to the provisions for employees who are unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade union membership to receive compensation from those responsible for that act. It is important for the House to appreciate that the right to compensation is extended only to those who have been unreasonably excluded or expelled.
As has been said before, expulsion or exclusion from union membership can wholly destroy a man's ability to earn his living. It must happen, probably not infrequently, that the exclusion or expulsion is unreasonable. In my view, it is monstrously unjust that persons who have been so treated should not have the right to claim some compensation from the people who are responsible.
When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield dealt with clauses 3 and 4, he declined to deal with that aspect. He did not advance any arguments, good or bad, against the provision entitling such a person to claim compensation. The House is entitled to know whether the Labour Party proposes to support or oppose those provisions that entitle people to compensation when they are unreasonably excluded or expelled from union membership. I hope that we are told the answer in the winding-up speech.
The third aspect of the Bill upon which I shall briefly touch is the closed shop provisions. The Bill gives significantly greater protection to employees who have been dismissed because of their refusal to join a union when that refusal


is founded on grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal convictions. I ask myself whether any reasonable-minded hon. Member can object to such increased protection. It is the least that this House can offer in a democracy.
I also wonder whether any reasonable-minded hon. Member can object to the other provisions that touch on closed shops, such as the provision that a closed shop should not be effective unless it is supported by 80 per cent. of the existing work force, or the provision that persons in employment before the consultation on the closed shop agreement should not be dismissed for refusal to join a union. It seems to me, and probably to most people in Britain, that that extension of protection is simply a restatement of basic democratic rights.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is not present, because he asked how one will decide whether the reason for refusing to join a union is based on a deeply hell personal conviction. There are two simple answers to that question. First, the test in the Bill is no more difficult than the test included in the 1978 Act—namely, whether the refusal was the result of a genuine religious conviction. The hon. Member was a member of the Government that built that particular test into the 1978 Act.
The other answer is that if it is right and proper to leave the determination of the central issue as to whether a man has been unfairly dismissed to the tribunal, can it be wrong to leave the determination of these other questions to the same industrial tribunal?

Mr. Skinner: The Law Society did it last week.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make an intervention, I suggest that he gets to his feet. As he obviously does not have an-thing to say, I shall not give way.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Hogg: No. The hon. Gentleman rose to his feet without—

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinner rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat or seek to intervene.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman invited me to intervene. Will he give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way, because when the hon. Member paused for thought he recognised that he did not have a thought in his head. In those circumstances, I do not propose to give way.

Mr. Skinner: Tell us about the Law Society's tribunal of last week.

Mr. Hogg: The final aspect that I shall briefly mention is that of secondary picketing. I am well aware that the hon. Member for Bolsover knows all about picketing, but I would like him to understand two things. He may benefit if he listens.

Mr. Skinner: Tell us about the Star Chamber.

Mr. Hogg: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent trade union officials picketing in the course of their duties. It has been suggested that the contrary is true, but that is not so. The Bill does not prohibit anyone from picketing. It merely confines the right to picket to an employee's place of work. I regard that as wholly reasonable. Those hon. Members who take a contrary view are seeking to perpetuate precisely the conditions that led to the disorder of last winter. More than that, they are seeking to perpetuate precisely those conditions that led to hardship for hundreds of thousands of people who were not involved in the original trade dispute. I do not think that that is an attitude which reasonable-minded men could hold, and the fact that the hon. Member for Bolsover clearly holds it fortifies me in that view.
In my view, this Bill deserves the unqualified support of the House. Its proposals are essentially moderate in character. If implemented, it will extend democracy in industrial relations, and, if carried, these measures will do something to protect individuals and the community as a whole. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: I declare my interest as a seaman, a sponsored member of a national union, and not paid or in any


way receiving one penny from that union. As a seaman of 10 years' standing, I hope that the House will allow me to go into some of the detailed effects of the Bill on one body of workers, because there has been an awful lot of generalisation from the Conservative Benches about trade unions, as we had in 1971—and, my God, we learnt an awful lot of lessons after that piece of legislation.
I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that due to the detailed aspects of the interpretation of the 1971 legislation and its effects on the destruction of trade union activity, the Government at the time were forced to make exceptions to their legislation, which compromised their principle of the right not to belong to a trade union. That is the same principal as is being presented to the House again this evening.
The argument is that the balance of power has changed. After Grunwick and the comparison of conditions in our industries with those in the rest of Europe, I should have thought that there was good reason for saying that the trade unions do not have enough power to achieve what they need, by any measure of comparison. However, in view of the time, I leave that argument aside.
The Secretary of State said that there is a fundamental principle involved in the Bill—the right not to belong to a trade union. It is the same argument as we had before, as if that right is equal to the right to belong to a trade union. The difficulty, of course, is that one tends to undermine the other in a state of organisation, and the degree to which it does that depends upon the power of those who collectively come together to argue their case to improve the conditions of workers in the industry, whether union workers or non-union workers. Indeed, we would say that, as was reflected in the previous legislation, the Bill seeks to outlaw the closed shop. We argued the collective right and the problems of undermining by granting this right not to belong to a trade union.
The then Government recognised the force of the argument in certain industries, particularly my industry, seafaring, and in the actors' union, Equity. They then changed the argument and said that in those activities there could be people who would be denied the right not to

join a trade union. Once one is prepared to concede the point in one area, it is a principle that is to be conditioned by the argument and the consequences of that argument, otherwise it is a principle which is absolute and one does not seek to change it.
What I want to prove to the House is that, while the Tory Government at that time recognised that their legislation would destroy the seamen's union and Equity and undermine trade union development itself, this Bill also has the same reeds of destruction. If it is granted a Second Reading tonight, it will be with the acknowledgment of Conservative Members that in particular areas, especially the seafarers, it will seek to destroy particular trade unions and, therefore, deny the rights and benefits of organisation which the majority want. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to the arguments for a few seconds and they may then reject them once I have reached them.

Mr. Lyell: We shall.

Mr. Prescott: That is said before the arguments are put. That is the sort of thing that one is learning to expect from the Government on the production of such arrogant legislation.
However, I should like to give some facts for the benefit of a number of people who, apparently, are not aware of them. My industry has had a pre-entry closed shop since before the war. Ironically enough, it was supported by the shipowners. At the CBI conference, it was the shipowners who were arguing "Please retain the closed shop principle". [Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait and listen to the arguments.
The shipowners want stability in the industry. It is an industry with 2,000 ships, if not more, and 95,000 seafarers, spread all around the world. Eighty per cent. of its work force leaves within four or five years of joining, so it has a massive manpower turnover, and when they join the industry people are not necessarily aware of the benefits of trade unionism. All those factors increase the problem. There has been competition between the official and unofficial unions throughout the history of the industry. The closed shop provided some form of stability, and the employers were therefore also interested in having a closed shop.
If members are allowed to leave a union or, because of the high turnover, do not have to join a union, in this industry in particular many people may take that option, and there could be many reasons for that, conscience being only one.
A man may eat, sleep and live for up to two years on board ship, and such difficulties can create great agitation on a vessel visiting different parts of the world. It is easier in a factory to argue that the men may not want to work with a non-unionist, but it is much more difficult for a seafarer, and that fact must be recognised.
If many of those who have newly joined the industry do not want to become members of the union, the necessity for a ballot will then be argued, and 80 per cent. of those in the industry will have to agree to the principle for it to be carried—and I do not know how that percentage could be determined. In my industry a postal ballot is extremely difficult, producing low turn-outs. A vessel may be calling at ports all over the world and may have left port before the post arrives. I do not need to spell out the problems.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire) rose—

Mr. Prescott: Ballots may be voluntary but seafarers will nevertheless be denied proper opportunities.
There could be an increasing number of people not in the trade union, and the union is in any case difficult to organise because members are spread all over the world. It is difficult for a trade union official to visit members. Ships come in in large numbers every day to all our ports. A man will come ashore and sign off, and he wants to get home immediately. The next time that he sees his ship is at the last minute before it sails. Those conditions are not ideal in which peacefully to communicate an argument for trade unionism, which should not be denied to anyone.
In an industrial dispute normal methods of picketing can be used, but seafarers are faced with further problems. We are covered by other legislation. It is considered to be conspiracy if we disobey a lawful command or act together. We can

be fined by the captain, charged in the courts for criminal damages, and even civil damages can be deducted from a man's wages by the captain. If an incident occurred abroad, even fines against the company by the immigration authority can be passed on to an individual. An individual may say that it is his right not to belong to a union, and lie may make that decision in New York. The other men may decide that it is their right not to work with him, but the criminal law can be used against those men. Hon. Gentlemen may argue that such men could leave the factory, but a seaman cannot do that. A seaman seeking only to maintain his right to belong to a trade union and maintain his organising ability may have the force of damages under the criminal law used against him.
There are considerable difficulties with picketing, and for a seafarer it is impossible to define the place of work. I have heard it said that the Bill was purely to give the right to those offended against to seek damages in tort against people not officially involved in the dispute or who can be shown to be not involved. It has also been said that policemen would not intervene to find out who that person was. If men are picketing and an injunction on a claim for damages is brought against them, they will presumably have to desist in their action. Some months later, the court will decide whether that person had a legitimate right to be involved in the dispute. That undermines the position on picketing. If a man refuses to accept that injunction, what will happen? It will be the same as occurred in the case of the 1960 seamen's strike. That person will be in contempt of court. If he stays on the line he will go to gaol, and if he goes to gaol that is no way to improve industrial relations—it will inflame them.

I shall now—

Mr. Lyell: Finish.

Mr. Prescott: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not intervened to comment on the facts as to whether there is a dispute in the matter.
The time limit of 10 minutes makes matters extremely difficult. I oppose the Bill on the basis of many of the arguments that have been put forward by my hon. Friends. I specifically oppose it with regard to Equity and seafarers. It


will contribute to the destruction of the only sort of trade union organisation that exists in those bodies. That is a good extra reason why it should be opposed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that I caught your eye. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I declare a personal interest. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, which is involved in industrial relations, and a former member of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Civil Service Union.
The Bill is a moderate one. However, we should look at the background to the Bill and realise why the different clauses are needed. If we look at the British people, we see that one of their strengths is the ability to recognise when things are wrong. Another strength of the British people is their intense loyalty to organisations, associations, institutes, clubs and traditions. Because of that, they do not easily opt for change. They do not like change for the sake of change. They are reluctant to discard organisations or institutions which have served them well in the past. The further north one goes in Britain, the more one finds that the reluctance to change is more deeply entrenched. Old loyalties and old ways are not easily discarded.
In Scotland, after last winter, the British—and Scottish—sense of right and wrong made clear to all those who were prepared to listen that the people expected individuals who were not involved in disputes to be protected. The Bill takes care of that. It was also made clear that something had to be done about secondary picketing. The Bill takes care of that as well.
Protection should also be given to individuals where a closed shop threatens their jobs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made a convincing case for the seamen. I should like to point out that it is not unknown for seamen to hold ballots. Let me tell Labour Members that moderate individuals in trade unions have put forward their views on secret ballots at many conferences that I have attended. Moderates welcome the opportunity for secret ballots.
Scottish people take the view, because they are reluctant to discard their old ways and because they have a deep distrust of the glib, easy answer, that the Bill is not a glib, easy answer. They do not accept that drop-of-the-hat solutions can possibly cure the complex problems that are faced in Britain today. The Scots are a canny people.

Mr. Martin Flannery: They rejected the Tories.

Mr. Walker: That was demonstrated in the referendum on the Scotland Act. The result was a three-way split which left us all with nowhere positive to go. Yet, as with the rest of the United Kingdom, the Scottish people were aware that something had to be done. They were aware that Britain was being held to ransom—as we were held to ransom last winter.
Old loyalties were questioned and examined, old attitudes were critically examined and doubts were expressed openly about the way in which industrial practices were carried out. The people of Scotland supported the Labour Government in their efforts during last winter to bring sanity to the industrial scene. They continued to support the Labour Government at the last election. Many of them deserted their unions to do so.
People have not forgotten how the militants rejected the advice of trade union leaders. I remind hon. Members that a trade union leader was quoted in The Daily Telegraph on 17 January of this year as saying that strikers had "seized control" and that "anarchy" prevailed. That is why millions of trade unionists look to the Government to redress the balance. I believe that the measures in the Bill are designed to do just that. They provide a framework of modest change. They are just sufficient to permit moderate people to work together towards improved industrial relations within a free collective bargaining environment which recognises the parameters of economic reality.
Since 1945 Governments of all colours have, for considerations of short-term popularity, intervened in industry, introduced legislation, gone in for borrowing and printed money. The sad truth is that demand management policies and intervention on a massive scale, coupled with legislation designed to appease trade


union leaders and activists, have created a Frankenstein industrial situation. The monsters spawned by Frankenstein are inept management, intransigent unions, endemic high rates of inflation, low investment in some key areas, over-manning in many industries, demarcation disputes that belong to the days of the ark and low productivity.
The people of Britain recognise that we cannot continue to travel the road of Frankenstein and the monsters. They know and accept that some changes have to be made. The Bill will go some way towards doing that. It will not resolve the problems, because they will be resolved only by people on both sides being willing to do something.
I should like to illustrate that fact by an experience from my constituency. A canning factory closed in a small town where the majority of working people were employed in that factory. Instead of having lots of militant action, parades and noise, the people got together. I should like to put on record that the active paid local officials of the trade union could not have worked harder to find a solution. They worked with me, as a Conservative, and with the Labour, Liberal and Scottish National candidates at the general election. We recognise that we require a collective effort to find a solution. I believe that we are moving towards a solution.
The people in Scotland generally, as in Blairgowrie where the factory closure took place, are looking for co-operation in place of conflict and for conciliation in place of confrontation. It is no good Labour Members making noises. The people heard all the noises last winter. They are looking to us to get together and find solutions acceptable to all.
I am optimistic that the change of mood in the country will be helped by the Bill. The co-operation that I have enjoyed with the trade union officials in my constituency is real. They are not interested in hollow posturing or making political points. They care about the jobs of their members who have been made redundant.
I believe that the Bill is a small measure towards helping industrial relations, that it will help productivity and produce more and lasting jobs and that

people will recognise that it is a genuine attempt to bring a balance into the industrial scene. It will be seen to be a Bill that will be fair to all.
I accept the views put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the difficulties of seamen. I accept that something has to be done, because reasonable people must always listen to reasonable arguments. I commend the reasonable argument put by the hon. Gentleman. But I do not expect that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall suddenly, as if by magic, solve the problems that have existed in this country over the past two decades.
We require co-operation. We do not want people constantly to be knocking the trade unions. Equally, it does no service to trade unionists if Labour Members constantly knock employers. All trade unions and trade unionists are not bad, and all employers are not bad. We are looking for a meeting of minds, a willingness to recognise the parlous situation that exists in Britain. We also need a movement towards the solution of the problem. The Bill is a move towards restoring the balance, and it will help in that way.

9 pm

Mr. Ken Eastham: It is difficult to make a sensible speech in five minutes when one has been waiting about five hours to be called, although I understand the situation.
The Bill is a charter for bad employers. It is an attempt to turn the clock back to the 1930s and it is trying to force low pay through within the law as framed by the Conservatives. I wonder whether the general public realises, since the Minister said earlier that the Bill has the full support of the nation, how many married women will be subject to an attack in respect of their maternity leave rights. I wonder whether the public realises the effect that that will have upon families with young children. The Bill sets out some of the worst conditions for married women—in respect of entitlement to maternity leave—in the EEC.
We are supposed to be talking today only about strikes, picketing and other related matters. It is noticeable that throughout the debate not one Conservative Member has referred to the restrictions and the attacks that are being made


upon married women and their rights. This is not a progressive Bill but a reactionary piece of legislation, and the public will realise that once it becomes law.
In Manchester we enjoy the best industrial relations on record. I therefore regret very much some of the inflammatory speeches being made by the chief constable of Greater Manchester. He is causing grave concern among trade unions in my area. I have received a copy of a letter that was sent to Mr. Anderton by the engineering union in my city. It goes as follows:
Dear Sir,
On behalf of both the Manchester North District Committee of the AUEW (Engineering Section) and at our meeting of the Manchester North Shop Stewards' Quarterly the following resolution was passed: —
'The two aforementioned bodies are very disturbed at reports in the press attributed to Mr. Anderton, Chief Constable of Manchester, where he says that picketing is a privilege not a right.
We would respectfully point out to Mr Anderton as far as the Trade Union Movement is concerned, peaceful picketing is a hard won right and not a privilege, and I would point out that the two bodies already mentioned and the Trade Union Movement as a whole do all in their power to retain the right to picket'
Hopefully, you will please understand the depth of feelings amongst Trade Unionists, and realise that the statement like the one you have made appear to all Trade Unionists to be inflammatory and will do nothing but exacerbate the situation.
Those are the issues about which the trade unions, quite rightly, are concerned. The Bill will be not the end of the problems but the beginning. We need good working relationships and reasonable rates of pay. The trade unions do not seek a battleground. I hope that the Government are not hell-bent on confrontation.

Mr. Harold Walker: My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and Chorley (Mr. Dover) on their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Ilford, South made a restrained speech, but with a dash of wit. I hope that the Ministers heard his plea on behalf of the retired dockworkers. I wish the hon. Gentleman the best of luck and hope that the Department has a responsive ear.
The hon. Member for Chorley, if he departed from the convention that maiden speeches should be non-controversial, was only following an example that has been set increasingly of late. His speech was none the worse for that, and we look forward with interest to his future speeches.
Earlier this year the Government, by two orders during the summer, cut the protection for redundant workers and damaged the safeguards against unfair dismissal. At that time, I said that those mean and shabby actions were only the beginning of the attack by the Conservative Government on the whole range of statutory protections and safeguards that Parliament, belatedly but rightly, had granted to workers in recent years—safeguards and rights that not only the British Parliament but Parliaments throughout Western Europe have felt it proper to provide in one form or another.
Today we have been debating the second wave of an assault not only on the workers' organisations but on individual rights and safeguards. I doubt that anyone will by now be misled into believing—

Mr. Tony Marlow: Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose—

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman might allow me to say a few sentences. I doubt that anyone will be misled into believing that today's package will—

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Marlow rose—

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House five minutes. I wish that he would learn the courtesies and conventions of the House and not be so rude.
I doubt that anyone will be misled into believing that today's package will exhaust the eagerness of the Government to diminish the employment rights of workers, both collectively and individually.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who is not in his place, that his hope for more bread to come may well be satisfied. Already we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry are conspiring together to cut supplementary benefits for the wives and families of those who are in dispute with their employers.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, without notifying or consulting the TUC or the relevant unions, has already declared his intention to repeal the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act. The high-handed and arrogant way in which he has approached the matter will only stiffen the resistance that will meet that repeal when, and if, it comes before the House.
Perhaps the most serious thing yet to come is the declared intention of the Secretary of State, in the aftermath of the decision of the House of Lords in Express Newspapers v. MacShane, to spit in the face of their Lordships by bringing forward amendments to restrict the application of section 13 of the 1974 Act. Such amendments may well have serious consequences both for the law and for industrial relations. For that reason, we should have considered debate and decision by the whole House, not a dramatic reform being slipped in as a postscript to the Bill in Standing Committee.
If the Government sought—as they may have done fairly—to avoid influencing or prejudicing the Law Lords, they should have delayed publication of the Bill until it could be presented in its full and final form. If, on the other hand, they felt that the parliamentary timetable would not allow that, they should, in my view, if they were determined to go ahead in the light of the House of Lords decision, proceed by way of a separate Bill which could then receive the full consideration which it deserves. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will meet our anxieties on that matter.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way now. A few moments ago, he spoke about the individual rights of trade unions. I hope that he is concerned for the rights of individual trade union members. Will he say something about that?

Mr. Walker: The Bill deals with the collective rights of workers, with collective bargaining and with workers' organisations, and it deals also with individual workers and their rights. The hon. Gentleman will find that I have something to say on those matters.
I share entirely the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton

(Mr. Heffer) that the Conservative Party seems to have learnt at least something from its disastrous experience with the Industrial Relations Act—that presentation and timing matter. I suspect that that is why we are having these retrograde changes dribbled out bit by bit, in order to soften the total impact.
Perhaps the Government believe that their attacks on the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers and Engravers, on picketing and on union membership agreements will divert attention from their mean-minded and needlessly provocative whittling down of protection for individual workers, such as maternity rights, guaranteed payments, the rights of workers on fixed-term contracts, and the further changes in the unfair dismissal provisions.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me; I have very little time. I have given way once, and I cannot keep on doing so.
In regard to one of the matters I have just mentioned, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what will happen in the case of women who have declared in writing, as they will be required to do, their intention to return to work after their confinement and yet fail to do so. Without a clear statement from him, the obvious response of women in those circumstances will be for all of them, whether they sincerely intend to do so or not, to declare their intention to return to work, merely to safeguard themselves.
Obviously, there is not sufficient time available in this debate to deal adequately with all these matters, but I must warn the Government that each will be analysed and criticised, and many of them will be vigorously opposed in Committee.
I turn briefly now to the change proposed in clause 5. Not only have the Government reverted to almost exactly the wording of the 1971 Act in shifting from the employer the burden of proof that the dismissal was reasonable, but they have in addition provided that what is fair or unfair may vary according to the size and administrative resources of the employer.
Thus, at a stroke, the Government have not only dramatically tilted the balance


against the applicant but they have, so far as I can see, introduced a novel concept into the law—a concept which, I am sure, will test such forensic skill as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State can command when we discuss the issue in Committee. I can only assume that the parliamentary draftsman had his tongue in his cheek when subsequently writing into that same clause the reference to equity.
Of course, the Government claim for this, as for some of their other changes, that it is aimed specifically at helping small firms. But it applies in every case, regardless of size—to the small, the medium and the large firm alike. Apparently, we are now to have justice on a sliding scale, varying according to the size and administrative resources of the undertaking.
The Government seem to have brushed aside all the independent research showing that the unfair dismissal legislation is not a great problem for small employers, just as they appear to be turning their back on the concept of equality for all before the law, which, of course, they wrote into their election manifesto but readily abandon now in discriminating between different sizes of undertaking in respect of the rights of workers employed therein.
With all their professed concern for the growth potential of small businesses, the Government are apparently overlooking in clause 5, and in clauses 7 and 11, that they may well be providing positive incentives to keep down the size of a firm. They are inventing deterrents for an employer who might otherwise take on additional employees, because once a certain threshold has been reached the exemptions will not be enjoyed that are now being proposed.
I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is in the Chamber. I read with care the report in Hansard of his reply to the full day's debate last Friday that was devoted to the problems of small firms. Lo and behold, the problems that we hear so much about arising from protective legislation, such as the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977, received hardly a mention.
Before I deal with the more general proposal to switch the onus of proof of unfair dismissal on to the applicant, I quote, not for the first time, the collective and authoritative view of some of those who are at the sharp end of unfair dismissals and dismissal procedures, namely, managers. In a fairly recent survey of its members, the British Institute of Management, when referring to the present unfair dismissal provisions, stated:
this is generally regarded as reasonable although managers consider that the unfair dismissal provisions relating to closed shops need amendment. Otherwise management would not wish to see any changes in the unfair dismissal provisions".
I turn to union membership agreements. I doubt whether there is need for me to rehearse the considerable practical problems in defining conscientious objections and deeply held personal convictions. They have been referred to in the debate. I believe that they are self-evident. They are obvious to all. Nor do I intend to rehearse any of the arguments for or against the closed shop. My view, which I have often expressed in the House, is that it is a matter for the trade unions and the employers concerned to determine for themselves. I have on nearly as many occasions asked that union membership agreements be conducted in a flexible and tolerant manner wherever they are practised.
The relevant proposal in the Bill is especially difficult to interpret. In many instances it may make existing union membership agreements nugatory. Welcome though that may be to some Conservative Members, it will inevitably damage industrial relations in many areas. If the effect of the provisions is in practice to impose a virtual ban on many closed shops, that will defy all the advice both received and given by the Donovan Commission, which unequivocally set its face against a ban on closed shops.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) mentioned that there is concern, not least on the part of the Engineering Employers' Federation, that the closed shop provisions will make it unfair to dismiss employees who object, on the stated grounds in the Bill, to belonging to a particular trade union—shades of the Ferrybridge Six. The EEF and the TUC are at one in arguing how


disruptive that may prove to existing satisfactory bargaining arrangements. It is an open invitation for the formation of breakaway groups and the consequent fragmentation, with all the harm that that will entail, of collective bargaining.
I shall refer to another concern of the Engineering Employers' Federation, namely, the abolition of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975—or at least the recognised terms and conditions of employment provisions. We have not yet had an adequate statement from the Government of their reasons for taking that action. What evidence is there to justify that step?
For almost exactly 40 years we have had statutory provision to prevent undercutting of the terms of industry-wide agreements. The most recent statute, which immediately preceded the Employment Protection Act, within which Schedule 11 was subsumed, was the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, section 8 being relevant. We have had no indication from the Government that they intend to resurrect even that measure, inadequate though it was.
A survey carried out by the industrial relations research unit of Warwick university showed that, contrary to what the Government argued, schedule 11 is achieving one of its objectives of helping the lower paid. The majority of managers covered by the survey said either that successful claims had improved industrial relations in their enterprises or that the successful claims had had no consequential effects whatsoever. Even the Government now concede, contrary to what was said by one or two Government supporters today, that the provisions of schedule 11 have had no direct, or only a small, effect on the national pay bill.
Let me turn briefly to one other provision that was inadequately commented on in the debate. I refer to the proposed repeal of the recognition provisions in sections 11 to 16 of the Employment Protection Act. I do not pretend that they have worked as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furess (Mr. Booth) and I hoped when we introduced them in 1975. However, they have worked a lot better than some people have been prepared to credit. Certainly experience and, more particularly, the judges in the courts have revealed, if not

caused, weaknesses in the procedures that were not there in the first place but were subsequently created by judges who insisted on reading into the provisions words which had been debated long but which were rejected in the House. [Interruption.] I was asked whether I was criticising the judiciary. I am sure that I should be out of order if I did that. However, the judiciary criticised the House for these measures and at least one learned judge superimposed his ideas on what Parliament decided. He decided to read into these provisions the words which Parliament specifically excluded. The right hon. Gentleman knows the words to which I refer.
Repealing all these provisions without putting anything in their place leaves trade unions with only one way of wringing recognition out of a stubborn and pigheaded employer. We all know what that is—industrial action. Is the Grunwick way—that was a manifestation of the wrong way—a sensible way of proceeding in these matters? If the present arrangements are unsatisfactory, as I think they are, we should try to find better ways. Surely we should have a decent, sensible, civilised way of resolving recognition disputes through proper machinery. Unhappily, the Government seem to prefer the hard way—the way that left blood on the pavements at Willesden. [Interruption.] That, apparently, is what the Government prefer. They are not replacing with alternative machinery the provisions that they are withdrawing. If I am wrong, the Under-Secretary of State will correct me when he replies to the debate.
Let me make this point from the research carried out by the industrial relations research unit of Warwick university. It said:
Despite the problems, by the end of 1978, just over 900 of the 1,300 or so references had ben completed and collective bargaining had been extended to over 50,000 employees through the use of the statutory procedure. This was achieved overwhelmingly by voluntary settlement through conciliation during the procedure and the references were withdrawn. In the 20 per cent. of references where ACAS issued a report, recognition has been achieved in only a minority of cases.
The report goes on:
But this is to be expected. In these cases the employer has resisted all other attempts by the trade union to achieve recognition.


Just in case the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am making his point to some degree, the report goes on:
However, these voluntary settlements are reached in the context of the statutory procedure. There is no guarantee that similar success would be obtained by conciliation in the absence of statutory provisions.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider that matter again. Perhaps I may urge upon him, by way of a positive and constructive suggestion, that he might usefully consider the way in which the procedure has developed in Northern Ireland, which had the benefit of introducing these provisions subsequent to England and Wales and learning from our experience.
I turn to the power of the Secretary of State to make codes of practice. The Secretary of State will recall the long debates in Standing Committee in 1975 about the purpose, function and raison ďetre of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. He is departing from the fundamental concept which underlies the creation of that body. There was criticism of the over-involvement of Governments and Ministers in the day-to-day management of industrial relations. It was our view that Ministers should stand back and that the State should withdraw and leave it to those who had day-to-day practical experience of industry to determine those matters.
As part of that approach, we gave to ACAS the responsibility for producing codes, subject to endorsement by the House. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is taking that power away from ACAS. Certainly ACAS will continue to have the power to make codes, but the right hon. Gentleman will also have power to make codes, and his codes will override those of ACAS.
One of the most remarkable statements of the right hon. Gentleman was that he did not want ACAS to be tarnished by association and that he wanted to give it absolute independence. As I pointed out in an intervention, I doubt whether there is a single body—a single quango, for want of a better phrase—that has its statutory independence written in such firm terms as those in the first schedule to the Employment Protection Act:
The functions of the Service and of its officers and servants shall be performed on behalf of the Crown, but subject to paragraph 35 below

—that is, the Secretary of State's obligation to provide the pay and rations—
the Service shall not be subject to directions of any kind from any Minister of the Crown as to the manner in which it is to exercise any of its functions under any enactment".
The Secretary of State by his intervention diminishes the independence of ACAS.
The Secretary of State said that his code will also produce guidance on press freedom. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that he will cover all the matters that were the subject of inclusion in the proposed press charter. The charter would have covered not merely the way in which union membership agreements shall be applied to journalists. It contains guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism and the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and publish any article on the question of access to contributors.
There are many matters upon which we have touched or which we have debated inadequately today. We shall try to rectify that in Committee. There are also many parts of the Bill that we shall vigorously oppose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the Bill would contribute nothing to the solution of the real problems facing the country. It will do nothing for production or productivity. Despite its title—it might have been more appropriate to give it a title indicating that it is an employers'Bill—it will not do anything to improve industrial relations. It will have the same effect as its infamous predecessor, the Industrial Relations Act, not only because of the impact of some of its specific provisions but because of its generally harmful effect on the climate of industrial relations.
Paraphrasing what I said on an earlier occasion, I believe that working people will see the measure as part and parcel of a wider attack on them and their standards. The policies of the Government, not only on this matter but in other fields, seem deliberately calculated to arouse strife and conflict that the country can well do without and which could be avoided. The Government seem intent on dismantling the decent, modest and humane basic provisions introduced by the previous Labour Government. I give the Government notice that at the earliest opportunity we shall repair the


damage that they are inflicting on working people's protections and safeguards and on good industrial relations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I have the pleasant task of beginning my speech by congratulating the two maiden speakers who have made their debut tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) paid a graceful tribute to his predecessor, George Rodgers, a very much respected Member of the House. He told us of his constituency and of its virtues. He showed, if he will allow me to say so, the enviable capacity to make a speech without notes, and, more than that, a short speech without notes, which is very much harder. He will bring to the House 20 years' experience in the construction industry. He has great experience in matters of industrial relations and we shall look forward to his future contributions with great interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) also began his speech with a tribute to his predecessor, Arnold Shaw, whom he described as a very good constituency Member. He was certainly a very popular and hardworking Member of this House. My hon. Friend is a distinguished Territorial soldier, among his other qualities. He showed his concern for the interests of his constituency by speaking with great knowledge and feeling of the interests of commuters and of the problems that they are facing at present in his constituency. We shall look forward to his future contributions and are confident that they will be of great value.
The quality of our debate today has, I think, reflected something that most right hon. and hon. Members must feel—that those who strive to construct a fair balance between the legal rights and the legal restraints of people in an industrial society such as ours have to grapple with factors that are highly complex and are certainly highly emotive. But grapple with them we must—unless we believe either that everything is all right as it is or that, whatever may be wrong with our present arrangement, Parliament has got nothing to do with it and Parliament can do nothing to help to put it

right. I do not think that many people in our country today are either so complacent as to believe that everything is all right in the industrial scene or so resigned as to believe that there is nothing that Parliament can do to help.
Let us consider industrial action, so-called. More than anything else, I should have thought, in recent years, the events of last winter convinced people that we have not got the balance right. It has been tipped much too far in favour of those who want to interfere with other people, and therefore much too far against the interests of those who want only to get on with their own jobs, as usual. It has been tipped much too far against businesses and their customers and their employees, remote from the dispute, who can suffer the most dreadful damage and have no remedy at all.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said that it was nonsense to talk of the balance being wrong. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He said that the balance was still very much in favour of employers. I thought that when we listened to his views on industrial disputes we heard the authentic voice of those who believe that, when they want to get something, no rules apply. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come on."] I noted with care what the hon. Member for Walton said. "Come on" is the right response, perhaps, but it should have been addressed to the hon. Member for Walton. He said "Never forget that these lads are engaged in a struggle. When you are in a battle, you have got to win. It is an illusion that the trade union movement will sit down and allow this to happen." He said, referring to the Bill, "You have got to win."
The implication of that is "Never mind the rules and never mind who else gets hurt". That is a recipe for anarchy and is the doctrine of the survival of the strongest. Because there are those who take that view—though I regard it as uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Walton—we believe that it is necessary that such rules as there are should be capable of enforcement.
Let us look at the statutory protection of jobs. A measure of protection should exist against dismissal beyond what the contracts provide for. We introduced that measure into our law. But, in the other scale, surely we have to set the need


to create new jobs and, these days, even to sustain existing jobs. That means business confidence and flexibility.
Two years ago Lord Lever, who then had some special responsibility for small businesses—perhaps as an antidote to the ministrations of his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), who, unfortunately, is no longer present in the Chamber—correctly identified the danger. He said that we must not let the Employment Protection Act become an employment destruction Act. That was at a time when, for the Labour Government, truth was busting out all over.
The truth is that we can, for the best of motives, invest the holding of a job with a security and a protection so great that no one will offer that job in the first place. We have to get that balance right, and we were elected to do so.
What was missing in the speeches from Opposition Members was any reference to the outcome of the last general election. There is nothing in the Bill that was not foreshadowed in the Conservative Party manifesto upon which we were elected with a substantial majority. Those proposals, having been expanded in working papers throughout the summer and the autumn, are now embodied in the Bill. I do not think that Opposition Members do much service to the unemployed in their constituencies, whose numbers increased so dramatically under the previous Administration, by insisting that we have not got the balance right.

Mr. Harold Walker: I merely ask the Minister if he will refer me to the passages in the Conservative Party's manifesto that referred to cutting down women's maternity rights, worsening fixed-term contracts and other attacks on the protection of workers' rights.

Mr. Mayhew: In our manifesto we said that we would reform those aspects of employment protection legislation—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like it, but we said that we would reform those aspects of employment protection legislation that prevented businesses from staying afloat and providing employment. That was the essence of our manifesto.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned small firms. The exemption proposed

in the Bill for the first two years will be a great help for new firms. It will encourage them to take on more people, and it has been widely welcomed. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider issuing a code, because small firms find that the whole of the employment protection legislation is very complicated? If it were possible for the Government to issue a clear code, it would help small firms a great deal.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He takes a great interest in such matters, and his suggestion will be considered. I shall come to the exemptions for small firms in a moment.
One thing that has been so extraordinary about speeches from the Opposition Benches is the apparent inability of Opposition Members to decide whether to be disappointed or relieved about the Bill. We had the most extraordinary collection of epithets from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). He called the Bill puny, mean, spiteful and needlessly provoking. I was reminded of the old adage—if in doubt, abuse your opponent. There was very little of substance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Very little of substance was heard from the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) either. But in contrast we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who welcomed the Bill almost entirely. He welcomed the consultations, the provisions in relation to SLADE and those for schedule 11. In fact, he gave the Bill a general welcome, although he expressed reservations about the maternity provisions.
I turn to the Employment Protection Act 1975. Probably right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches really believe that this Government's attitude is based on spite. If they believe that no debate in this House or elsewhere will change their minds, because that belief is not founded on reason, it is founded on faith or perhaps on hope. It is certainly not founded on charity.
The purpose of the changes to the Act which the Bill proposes is to encourage employers to create more jobs. That is why the Bill puts a premium on starting a new small firm. We know that new firms create 80 per cent. of all new jobs


and we know that small firms of 20 employees or fewer create two-thirds of those new jobs. However, it is just after takeoff that these firms are at their most precarious. We propose these exemptions for small firms in order to help businesses create new jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), in a valuable speech, urged that we should extend that protection to all small firms and not just to new ones. We shall have to consider that carefully in future. The Bill will repeal schedule 11 to the 1975 Act in order to help small businesses. That proposal has the support of the hon. Member for Rochdale and others. That schedule was intended to give protection to low-paid workers by statutorily improving terms and conditions of employment. I agree that this is not an easy matter. The proposals were attacked by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, but low pay today is, in the main, due to low profitability, and this is what we must try to help firms get right. Most unions will acknowledge that schedule 11 has not solved the problem of low pay. We believe that more jobs will result if wages are fixed by negotiation rather than if employers are forced to follow national or local agreements to which they were not parties.
If anyone wants an example of the effect of the ministrations of schedule 11, he only has to look at what happened to Courtaulds at Carrickfergus in Northern Ireland in order to see how statutory proposals and provisions can lift wages above the level that was negotiated with unions on a productivity basis to a level which, in some cases, is above that of the district.
I turn to the provisions for reinstatement after maternity leave. I understand the anxieties that may have arisen. At present, 10 million women have jobs and only about 110,000 claim maternity pay. Those who employ those women need earlier confirmation than at present of their intention to return. So do their temporary replacements. Nobody has mentioned the problem of the temporary replacement, but he or she needs some earlier notification than is at present given. The additional confirmation, which clause 10 provides, will only have

to be given if the employer asks for it in writing not less than seven weeks after the confinement. There is a provision of 14 days to furnish that information. There is nothing very serious in that, but at least it tells the employer where he stands and reduces the uncertainty that is inherent in the right to reinstatement.
I was asked what would happen if a woman gave her notice but did not return. The answer is exactly what would happen at present—nothing. It has been suggested that this will nullify the whole procedure. I doubt whether that is right, but if it is the case we shall have to reconsider the matter. However, I have a higher opinion of human nature than have Labour Members.
But these provisions bear hardest of all on the very small firms, and the Bill provides some exemption for those employing less than six employees. The need for this, and the evidence of that need, is in our constituencies for those of us who have ears to hear, and it is in our postbags for those who have eyes to read. These employers will have to prove that it is not reasonably practicable to offer back to the employee her job or a suitable alternative. Only then will they be relieved of the obligation to reinstate.
To those who complain of their being second-class citizens, I acknowledge that to that extent their rights will be diminished.

Mr. Reg Race: Destroyed.

Mr. Mayhew: Not destroyed. If the hon. Gentleman listened, he would understand that they were not destroyed. But what is the alternative? By definition, they will only lose their right to reinstatement if it is not reasonably practicable to get back their old job and not reasonably practicable to be offered a suitable alternative. Is it suggested that the employer must do what is not reasonably practicable? If one runs a business of that size in a way that is not reasonably practicable, the consequence will be that one goes to the wall along with the jobs of the five employees, the reinstated mother among them. Is that what Labour Members want?
Labour Members must face the fact that employers with five or fewer employees are exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act—an exemption that was


proposed by the previous Government in a rare and admirable moment of realism. It is a very curious principle that swallows the unqualified refusal of a job on the ground that the applicant is a woman yet will not accept a restriction upon her statutory right to reinstatement when to implement it after maternity leave would not be reasonably practicable. That is not a distinction that I am able to support.

Mr. Varley: The Minister has placed a great deal of emphasis on supporting and creating conditions to assist small firms. Which does he think is doing most harm at present to small firms—the provisions of the Employment Protection Act or the 17 per cent. minimum lending rate?

Mr. Mayhew: If I had been a leading member of a Government who produced expenditure plans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I shall answer. Had I been a leading member of a Government who had produced expenditure commitments without providing any means of paying for them, I would be keeping rather quiet about the minimum lending rate that has resulted.
I now turn to that part of the Bill which has been described outside as an attack on the fundamental rights of trade union members. I find it very difficult to see where the fundamental rights of trade union members are attacked by the ballot provisions. Many hon. Members have spoken of the desirability of secret ballots. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that he had no objection to them, which was about the most positive thing in his speech. I sympathise with those who ask for mandatory ballots, but I believe that such a requirement would simply lead to an increase in unofficial action as a means of evasion.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that ballots were no panacea as though it had been claimed that they were. Of course they are not. What is being said to trade unions through the Bill is "You do not have to have a secret ballot for any of your decisions. It is up to you. But if you are thinking of having one, you do not have to worry about the cost, for the taxpayer will reimburse you." That may be an assault on the rights of the taxpayer—yet another one—but it can hardly be said to be an assault on the rights of the trade unions.
I turn to codes of practice. It does not seem very plausible to suggest that for my right hon. Friend to have the power to issue codes of practice for the promotion of industrial relations, after consultation with ACAS and for the approval of Parliament, is a wicked and dreadful assault. Codes of practice are now well established in our arrangements. They meet the objections of those who complain of legalism in industrial relations. If practices such as picketing and the closed shop are to remain lawful, as under the Bill they are, and if those practices can be abused and occasion great injustice, guidance should be available to all those concerned in clear and simple terms that have been approved by Parliament. That is also provided for in the Bill. We greatly hope that once the Bill is enacted we shall gain TUC and CBI approval for the codes.
Turning to the SLADE provisions in clause 15, it is hard to recognise in what the Bill proposes for strong-arm recruitment tactics of the kind perpetrated by SLADE an attack on fundamental union rights. The Bill will withdraw from those activities immunity from civil action. Few people will regret that. They have been an embarrassment to trade unionists and a grave injustice to their victims.

Mr. Prescott: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall the incident concerning the "Globtik Venus"? During an industrial dispute, the owner wanted to get the crew off the ship. He hired thugs on Humberside to attack the ship with axes and hammers to take the men off that vessel. The owner was advised by certain Conservative hon. Members.

Mr. Mayhew: If that was a truthful account, there would have been a breach of criminal law. That is the answer to that.

Mr. Prescott: It was not. It took place in France.

Mr. Mayhew: The real wrath of this debate has been reserved—it is somewhat bogus wrath—for the Government daring to propose a change in the legislation that at present governs closed shops and picketing. It has been said that only voluntary guides are any good. However, picketing and the closed shop bear crucially upon the rights of other people. The trouble with voluntary guides—valuable


and welcome as they are—is that they afford no remedy to those who suffer harm if they are flouted.
It is not a question of either voluntary or statutory guides, because we need both. Only law can give those who are harmed a remedy. That principle is not questioned when duties are placed on an employer. There are countless guides to good practice, good housekeeping, good maintenance and good inspection, all properly compiled in the interests of employees. They impose duties on employers, but no Opposition Members ever suggest that employees would be adequately protected by voluntary guides alone without the enforcement of common law or of the Factories Acts, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and all the other relevant Acts.
No Opposition Member ever asks for those laws to be repealed. What is the difference? The difference is that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his friends do not care so much about the rights of those affected by the closed shop and picketing. They are left to take their chance on voluntary observance. So much for the Labour Party's devotion to the principle of a State without second-class citizens.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He has been talking about remedies. There is a proper proposal in the Bill that if a closed shop agreement is set up, there must be an agreement by 80 per cent. of those within that area of work. Certain people are currently trapped within the closed shops. The Conservative Party believes in individual freedom and choice. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of introducing at a later stage measures whereby, at three-yearly intervals, if 20 per cent. of a closed shop wish to have a new ballot they can again consider the question of coming out of a closed shop?

Mr. Mayhew: In the code of practice for the closed shop, consideration will be given to recommendations concerning periodic review. From the union side there is not much to complain about in a Bill that leaves the legality of a closed shop agreement untouched. I know that there are grounds for complaint from another side, and these have been forcefully

impresed upon us—that we are not outlawing the closed shop. My right hon. Friend has explained why we are not going down that road.
But what we say to the trade unions is this: "If you are to have your closed shop, you must realise that a union card refused or torn up can mean a right to work denied. You have your independent review committee, and we hope that it will continue. But it is only just that you should not be final judges in your own cause but that your would-be members should have a legal right to appeal for an enforceable remedy to a truly independent tribunal experienced in industrial matters if they think that you have behaved unreasonably and that they have suffered in consequence." There is nothing radical or novel about that. It was recommended by Lord Donovan at least 10 years ago.
It is very strange that Opposition right hon. and hon. Members can uphold with such fervour the concept of unreasonable dismissal from what is only one employment and yet turn away in horror from the concept of unreasonable expulsion from a union when that can very well lead to exclusion from all employment in the only trade which a man knows.
We have heard attacks on the requirement for a secret ballot, on the extension of the conscience clause, and on the provision for compensation for those who are existing employees, such as the British Rail employees, who have the rules unilaterally changed against them and are made to join a trade union or get the sack. I believe that these changes are wanted by the country as a whole and by the majority of trade union members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The polls—[Interruption.] It is trade union members who have to face the hardship and the consequences of closed shops. It is trade union members, and not Opposition Members, who have to brave the picket lines and who are asking for protection. These are the people who understand the issues at stake and who voted for a Government who set out their proposals in their manifesto. That is what Labour Members never refer to—that these battles were the battles of 3 May, and that the issue was put to the test and decided on 3 May this year.
Closed shop agreements have had the kind of exemption that we are proposing


in the Bill for many years quite voluntarily and these proposals sort themselves out in practice. There is much less doubt in determining these cases in practice than there is in debating them generally. That is what industrial tribunals are for, and we intend to use them.
I come lastly to what has been said about the Bill's proposals for picketing. The extraordinary thing about this debate has been that the Opposition Benches have been littered with right hon. and hon. Members who have been knocked flat by the Aunt Sallies that they themselves have erected. The right hon. Member for Doncaster seemed to be surprised that we were not proposing in the Bill a criminal offence for picketing outside the provisions of the Bill. Of course we are not doing so. He cannot have read the Bill or the working papers. The criminal law is not being affected.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—

Mr. Mayhew: The criminal law is not being touched. The vital thing to remember about the Bill is not, as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg)said, that it is putting trade union members in a special position in the law. They are in a special position

in the law already. This Bill is restoring to employers, and others who are harmfully affected by the consequences of people acting as pickets inducing breaches of contract, their common law rights that statute has taken away.

It is said that these are simply the distinctions of a lawyer removed from the realities of life. I am very sensitive to that kind of charge. But one thing a lawyer is allowed to do is to cite authority. I cite the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who said on 16 January this year that secondary picketing
is not designed to stop the blackleg from doing the job of the man on strike. It is intended to stop another worker from doing the job that he usually does. I hat is the distinction that I make as an ordinary citizen and not as a lawyer."—[official Report, 16 January 1979: Vol. 960, c. 1546.]
That is good enough for me. This is a Bill that is demanded by the country. It reflects the belief of the Government that there is injustice to be put right, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 245.

Division No. 127]
AYES
[10 pm


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buck, Antony
Eggar, Timothy


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond
Emery, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Butcher, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Hon Adam
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Farr, John


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fell, Anthony


Bendell, Vivian
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Channon, Paul
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Body, Richard
Colvin, Michael
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope,John
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, Andrew
Cranborne, Viscount
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Critchley, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Dean,Paul (North Somerset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Brittan, Leon
Dorrell, Stephen
Goodlad, Alastair


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gorst, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dover, Denshore
Gow, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Durant, Tony
Gray, Hamish




Greenway, Harry
Marlow, Tony
Royle, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Hannam, John
Mellor, David
Silvester, Fred


Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman
Speller, Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Hicks, Robert
Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stanley, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Steel, Rt Hon David




Steen, Anthony


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)



Hooson, Tom
Mudd, David
Stevens, Martin


Hordern, Peter
Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Myles, David
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Neale, Gerrard
Stokes, John


Howells, Geraint
Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Normanton, Tom
Temple-Morris, Peter


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Nott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Osborn, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Kimball, Marcus
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Trotter Neville


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knox, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Lamont, Norman
Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Latham, Michael
Percival, Sir Ian
Wakeham, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lawson, Nigel
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Lee, John
Pollock, Alexander
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Porter, George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waller, Gary


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Ward, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Loveridge, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Luce, Richard
Raison, Timothy
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Lyell, Nicholas
Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McCrindle, Robert
Renton, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhodes James, Robert
Wickenden, Keith


MacGregor, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridsdale, Julian
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Younger, Sir George (Acton)


McQuarrie, Albert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Major, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Marland, Paul
Rost, Peter
 Mr. Aothony Berry.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Clark, David (South Shields)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cook, Robin F.


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Cowans, Harry







Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Crowther, J. S.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, George


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Ryman, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Sever, John


Dewar, Donald
Lamble, David
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs Renée


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A.W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Straw, Jack


Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Field, Frank
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Fitch, Alan
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Flannery, Martin
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Maxton, John
Torney Tom


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Meacher, Michael
Urwin, Rt Hn Tom


Freeson, RtHon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Watkins, David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Weetch, Ken


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Welsh, Michael


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ogden, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Haynes, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Parker, John
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Home Robertson, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Woolmer, Kenneth


Homewood, William
Pendry, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Horam, John
Prescott, John



Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Huckfield, Les
Race, Reg
Mr. George Morton and


Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Radice, Giles
 Mr. Donald Coleman.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read a Second time.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for payments out of public funds towards trade unions' expenditure in respect of ballots and for the issue by

the Secretary of State of Codes of Practice for the improvement of industrial relations, to make provision in respect of exclusion or expulsion from trade unions and otherwise to amend the law relating to workers, employers, trade unions and employers' associations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required for making payments under any scheme under the said Act of the present Session providing for payments towards expenditure incurred by trade unions in respect of ballots.—[Mr Prior.]

Orders of the Day — PNEUMOCONIOSIS (WORKERS' COMPENSATION)

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, under which these regulations are to be made, was passed by the previous Parliament immediately before the dissolution in April this year, and came into force on 4 July. Regulations enabling claims to be made came into operation on the same day. The regulations that the House is asked to approve tonight set out how the amounts to be paid to those who satisfy the entitlement conditions under the Act will be determined, and by means of the tables, to be found at pages 7–11, the actual amounts payable in particular cases can be precisely calculated.
I had originally hoped that it would be possible for these regulations to be approved before the Summer Recess and, when it became clear that this could not be done, that they would be laid as soon as the House reassembled after the summer. Unfortunately, the preparation of the regulations has proved a very much more complex task than had been envisaged. This has been partly because of difficulties in deciding on the fairest way of reflecting, within the limitations imposed by the Act, the varying patterns of progression shown by the particular varieties of disease within its scope, and partly because of purely technical difficulties in linking these regulations with the relevant procedures of the Department of Health and Social Security in handling claims for disablement benefit and death benefit. I very much regret that this has inevitably delayed payments to those unfortunate and, for the most part, elderly people.
The regulations take as their starting point the provisions of that part of the National Coal Board's pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, introduced in October 1974, which covered sufferers, and dependants of deceased sufferers, who had

been diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis prior to that date. This was foreshadowed by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) when he introduced a Bill on 2 April. There are, however, a number of variations from the details of the NCB scheme, and I will draw attention to the most important of these.
Regulation 3, taken in conjunction with table 1, is the key regulation, which sets out how payments to living suffers from one of the diseases covered by the Act are to be determined. The amount of the payment is to be decided by reference to what is called the first determination that the sufferer was suffering from the disease—usually by a pneumoconiosis medical board. The amount the sufferer receives will depend on his age at the time of that first determination, and the extent of his disability assessed at that time. This differs slightly from the NCB scheme, which used the sufferer's age and assessed level of disability at the date from which disablement benefit first became payable—which was sometimes backdated to several years before the date of the first determination. The level of disability applicable from that earlier date may be lower. In some cases this variaation will be to the advantage of the applicant, in others to his disadvantage; but for the most part not by a great deal either way. The different basis has been adopted because of the ready availability of the necessary records.
Those familiar with the NCB scheme will know that under that scheme five-year bands were used, whereas we have adopted single-year age bands. Single-year age bands seemed rather fairer to us; five-year bands would have led to some people losing a great deal if their birthday fell just the wrong side of the dividing line. I see that I have the agreement on that of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who has taken a great interest in this matter.
However, the major variation from the NCB scheme is in the actual amounts to be paid at corresponding points on the tables. The NCB scheme was introduced in October 1974. Because of inflation, money is now worth only about half what it was then. So it seemed right that an average payment under the Act should be about twice what it would have been using the NCB tables. The obvious way


to achieve this would have been simply to double all the NCB figures.
However, there was a good reason for not just doing that. If the amounts of the payments to be made in particular cases are to be determined by reference to the age and level of disability of a sufferer when he was first discovered to have the disease, then obviously the amounts should take into account the likelihood of this disability becoming more severe as the sufferer gets older. This factor is most important in cases where, at the time of first diagnosis, the disease was not very severe—that is, where the assessment at that time was only 10 per cent. or 20 per cent.
It seemed clear both from the DHSS statistics and other information provided to us that the proportion of those first diagnosed as 10 per cent. disabled, and to a lesser extent 20 per cent. disabled, progressing to the more severe levels of disability, is considerably greater for the main groups who will benefit under the Act—slate, cotton and abestos workers—than it is for coal miners. The most satisfactory way of reflecting that seemed to be to reduce the differential between the amounts payable for those first diagnosed at any given age at the lower levels of disability, and the amounts payable for those diagnosed at the same age with higher disability levels.
We therefore took the amounts from the NCB tables, and increased those for sufferers first diagnosed as 10 per cent. disabled by 50 per cent., for sufferers first diagnosed as 20 per cent. disabled by 25 per cent, and for sufferers first diagnosed as 30 per cent. disabled by 10 per cent. We then increased all the figures in the resulting table by 60 per cent. Our estimate is that that will produce average payments approximately the same as if there had been a straight 100 per cent. increase of the figures in the NCB tables.
It was suggested to us that the right way to pay regard to the greater likelihood of progression to higher levels of disability might be to take account of the sufferer's most recent assessment in determining the amount to be paid. At first sight, that seems a very reasonable suggestion, and we looked into it carefully. There are a number of difficulties about it, but the major objection arises

from the fact that the Act provides only for a single lump-sum payment. Many of those who receive the payment would have developed the disease may years ago, and it is now known whether it did or did not progress to the severe stage in their case. But there will be others who have only recently developed the disease, and once payments have been made in all the old cases all subsequent beneficiaries will fall into that category.
To take account of latest assessments in individual cases would be to the clear disadvantage of those in the second group with low initial assessments, because it cannot yet be known to what extent the disease may progress in their case. We concluded that it would be unreasonable to discriminate against them in that way.
I will now go rather more briefly through the remaining regulations. Regulation 4 covers payments to the great majority of dependants of deceased sufferers. It follows very closely the pattern under the NCB scheme. If the sufferer was receiving disablement benefit for the disease, the dependant receives an amount arrived at by taking the amount that would have been payable to the sufferer if he were still alive and then deducting from it an amount which would have been payable to him if his age when he was first diagnosed had been his age when he died. If the sufferer died as a result of the disease, an additional payment will be made, in accordance with table 2 of the schedule. These amounts have been increased over the NCB equivalents in the same way as in table 1.
A dependant who is entitled to a payment in a case where disablement benefit was not payable to the sufferer in life will receive only the latter payment. In determining whether the payment should be made, reliance will generally be placed on the decision reached by the doctors of the pneumoconiosis medical panel, although it will be possible for the Secretary of State to take other evidence into account if no such decision was reached, or if it cannot now be discovered what the decision was.
Regulation 5 deals with the special case of dependants of sufferers who died from diffuse mesothelioma. These rather complicated provisions are needed partly because that fatal disease almost always progresses within a year or two from first diagnosis to death, and partly because


those who develop it may well also be sufferers from pneumoconiosis. In that case only, the amount of a payment to dependants of those who died as a result of the disease is determined solely by the sufferer's age of death, not by his level of disability when first diagnosed.
Regulation 6 contains special provisions covering those sufferers who were also suffering from tuberculosis when pneumoconiosis was first diagnosed. These are needed because, if and when the tuberculosis becomes inactive, the assessed level of disability may actually go down—the only circumstances in which that happens.
Regulation 7 covers the minority of cases where it will be impossible to confirm from any available official records the information necessary to work out the right payment in accordance with the tables. These should be confined to a small group of dependants, unlikely to number more than 100 altogether.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn special attention to the regulations on the ground that the provision in regulation 7 for the Secretary of State to pay whatever amount appears in any particular case to be just and equitable in the circumstances is an unexpected use of the powers in the Act. The effect of the provisos to the regulation will, however, be to determine the precise amount payable in substantially all the cases concerned.
We adopted the form of words which the Joint Committee has questioned because we are most anxious to avoid claimants being precluded from receiving a payment in accordance with the foregoing regulations merely because of some purely technical deficiency in the information available.
Regulation 8 sets a minimum amount of £725 to be paid to any dependant who is entitled to a payment. Table 1 sets the same minimum for sufferers, but without regulation 8 the dependant of a sufferer who died shortly after the disease had been diagnosed, but not as a result of the disease, would otherwise receive nothing, or only a derisorily small sum.
In conclusion, I should say that I wish that these regulations might be simpler, but we have tried to provide within the limitations of a single payment to each individual—which is imposed upon us by the Act—for a wide variety of possible

situations. There is no single "right" pattern of payments that can be objectively identified. I believe, however, that in the circumstances these regulations are as fair as any that could have been devised, and I ask the House to give them its approval.

Mr. Harold Walker: I share the Minister's regret at the delay in bringing the regulations before the House, but, having seen their complexity, I can quite understand and I make no complaint.
I welcome the regulations, and, in particular, I welcome the Minister's assurance on the point raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about regulation 7. I am sure that the House will accept that assurance, and I go so far as to urge it to do so. Beyond that, I wish to say nothing which might further delay the regulations, which, as I say, I warmly welcome.
Perhaps I should add—it might be churlish were I to do otherwise—that the regulations are at least as generous as we had intended, and perhaps, given the present Government's policies, more generous than one might have expected.
I pay tribute to the officials in the Minister's Department. I know how hard they have worked and the difficulties which they must have experienced in producing the regulations. I am glad to put that on record.
I come now to two questions to the Minister. Will he discuss with his Department's press and publicity section the possibility of giving wide publicity to the scheme now that it is launched? There is a widespread assumption that it is solely or mainly applicable to the slate quarry industry. That is incorrect, as the Minister said. It applies to workers engaged in the cotton and asbestos industries and to a number of other industries about which concern has been expressed in the House over the years. I think here of iron ore mining, pottery and other industries.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving wide publicity to the scheme and—dare I suggest it?—think about urging the head of his information division to look at the possibility of using trade union journals?
My next point is not for the hon. and learned Gentleman or his Department but it is nevertheless closley related to the matter before us. I referred to this on the last occasion when his Department answered oral questions. There is widespread disquiet about some of the decisions of the pneumoconiosis medical board panels. Many people regard some of these decisions as extraordinary.
I have already mentioned in the House one case which highlighted the apparent contradictions between what a company does in accepting civil liability and not defending a case in the courts and what is done by the Department of Health and Social Security. Oddly enough, in such cases the Department's own pneumoconiosis panels will not share the view often taken by a particular company in the courts, perhaps after considerable expense.
I refer again to a case which had been reported in The Guardian. The widow of a maintenance fitter claimed that her husband died of mesothelioma arising from his work with asbestos. His employers, Babcock International, settled out of court for £10,000. One assumes that they paid that rather large sum—it may not have seemed a large sum to the poor widow—only after the most careful consideration of the chances of winning or losing in the courts. Despite that, the London pneumoconiosis medical panel refused to accept that the man had died from a dust-related disease or from one of the prescribed diseases.
That is not an isolated case. I remember being at Hebden Bridgewhere there was the infamous Acre Mill situation and talking to a former engineer at the mill who had been granted £16,000 compensation after a biopsy and yet the pneumoconiosis board refused to accept that the man had been suffering from asbestosis.
I mention two cases, but I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House could add to them. I recognise that this is not for the Minister, nor for his Department, but I hope that he will pass on the disquiet expressed to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
I wish the regulations well and hope that the scheme will quickly become operative and that those who have waited

for a long time to obtain justice will at last be able to receive it.

Mr. John Golding: May I say how grateful many of us were to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for making certain that the scheme was introduced in the House. I represent both pottery and foundry workers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who is here this evening, represents iron ore miners. This statutory instrument is important to all of them.
I want to make just one point. I am dissatisfied with the conditions laid down for payments to dependants of persons disabled by disease.
A few years ago I made representations to the late Brian O'Malley about the circumstances of widows of coal miners when pneumoconiosis compensation had been paid. The husband died, a post mortem would take place, and a certificate would be given that the man had died of emphysema or bronchitis. Then there would be distress because no allowance would be paid.
Brian O'Malley tackled that problem. I may be over-simplifying the position, but roughly, if payment has been made in life for pneumoconiosis, the indignity of a post mortem and the change of diagnosis to emphysema or bronchitis is avoided. That is important in the potteries and foundries as well as in the mining industry.
I ask the Government to reconsider their position on this point. I know that the statutory instrument states that it is not open to the Secretary of State to be satisfied with the cause of death if certain conditions are not met, but it will lead to a great deal of unhappiness in he families of workers.
It is a cause of great discontent among workers and their families that such different treatment is given to sufferers from pneumoconiosis and byssinosis compared with that given to those suffering from emphysema and bronchitis. The effects are often indistinguishable. I am sure that the regulations will go through tonight, but I am certain that they will lead to a great deal of unnecessary distress. I ask the Government to look carefully at their operation.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: These regulations are obviously of great importance to my constituency because of the presence of the slate quarrying industry in it. I give a belated welcome to slightly belated regulations. I understand the reasons for delay. I welcome the fact that they have been presented tonight.
My constituents had expected that possibly the payments would have been made before the end of November, and in some ways it is sad that they have not, with Christmas coming, but I hope that there will be no further delays with payments in January. I should be interested to hear from the Minister when people might expect to have the cheques in their hands. If the regulations were two months late in arriving, the Act was 20 years late. However, I welcome the progress that has been made.
I give the contents of the regulations a mixed welcome. It is to be welcomed that the payments exceed those in the National Coal Board-National Union of Mineworkers scheme. The increase is between 160 per cent. and 300 per cent. However, as the Minister said, inflation accounts for most of that. I welcome the greater weighting given to the lower percentages—those with 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. disability—in recognition of the progressive nature of the disease.
It is also to be welcomed that there are one-year bands rather than five-year bands. The five-year bands in the coal mining scheme produced some tremendous anomalies. The one-year bands smooth out the anomalies and are fairer to everybody. I welcome the fact that there is no artificial cut-off point in time. Such a provision produced difficulties in the coal mining scheme.
The Minister will understand that I much regret that it was not possible to accede to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and myself to give genuine recognition to the progressive nature of the disease and to go beyond the 10 per cent. loading.
The best that I can do is to give an example of a man who was first recognised, at the age of 50 years, as a sufferer with a 10 per cent. disability. Under the regulations he would have £4,470 compensation. By the age of 52 years he may progress to a 20 per cent disability. Had

that been the age when he was first recognised as a sufferer, he would have received £7,100. By the age of 55 years he may progress to 30 per cent. If that had been the age of recognition, the compensation under the regulations would have been up to £8,280. If by 57 years he has progressed to 100 per cent., and if that had been the age of first recognition, the compensation would have been £12,800. That is an example of the anomalies that arise.
The Minister is aware of the schedule of about 50 cases that my hon. Friend and I passed to him in the summer. The schedule indicated the rapid progression of the disease that takes place. I shall draw three cases at random. Case A went from 10 per cent. in 1970 to 100 per cent. in 1978. Case B went from 20 per cent. in 1961 to 100 per cent. in 1965. Case C went from 20 per cent. in 1975 to 40 per cent. in 1977. As greater study is given to these matters, I ask the Government to consider whether it is possible to have a grid, a combination of age and disability, so that the sufferer may have the most favourable combination of both factors. For example, two men may both be suffering 50 per cent. disability and both may be aged 50 years. One may receive £13,760 under the regulations and the other £5,400. That is a clear anomaly. I hope that there is a way of overcoming it.
The scales would have been fairer if the first column had been under 10 per cent., and thereafter 10 per cent. to 19 per cent., 20 per cent. to 29 per cent. through the scales. That would have produced a fairer balance. However, that is a matter of detail.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have already spoken about the identification of the disease. There are great misgivings whether the pneumoconiosis medical boards accurately assess the disease. For example, there is concern that emphysema and bronchitis may be caused by industry and that that will not be recognised by the boards.
There is especial concern whether the pneumoconiosis boards are willing to ascribe death to pneumoconiosis. There is widespread evidence of differences of opinion between coroners and local doctors, on the one hand, and pneumoconiosis


medical boards, on the other. In the Eryri area the coroner, Mr. John Pritchard-Jones, told me of the considerable personal anxiety that is caused to him by the difference of medical opinion on the cause of death. He states that he prefers
to accept the evidence of the pathologist since he has looked into the whole body in great detail and has presented a detailed report, but more than anything that he has also appeared in court to explain his decision.
Mr. Pritchard-Jones states:
The pneumoconiosis board, on the other hand, only look at a slide and section of the lung.
Although they are clearly experienced in matters of pneumoconiosis the coroner is of the opinion that the pathologist on balance has a greater weight of evidence in his favour.
That is important. It affects these regulations as well as other matters. This matter came before the House recently in early-day motion No. 192, which was supported by over 100 Members.
[That this House calls for the immediate abolition of pneumoconiosis medical panels, many of which reject applicants despite evidence from general practitioners, consultants and pathologists; notes that the proportion of applicants rejected by these panels has risen from 32 per cent. in 1953 to 72 per cent. in 1978; and proposes that an affirmative diagnosis by a general practitioner and local consultant should be the only medical evidence required for a claim, and the onus of proof to the contrary on appeal should be placed on the Department of Health and Social Security; and in the case of death, the affirmative decision of a coroner and his pathologist should be accepted, with the onus of proof to the contrary on appeal placed on the Department of Health and Social Security.]
Regulations 4(4) and 4(5) appear to direct the Minister not to take note of the coroner's evidence. To some extent, that goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of section 5 of the Act, which provides for a degree of discretion. I hope that in such cases where difficulties arise there will be an opportunity for discretion. Clearly there is a widespread bone of contention that is worrying a number of hon. Members. I ask the Government to give serious thought to these matters.
We should also like confirmation of the status of these regulations and the fact that they do not place any limitation on the eligibility laid down in the Act. Clearly the Act is the basic document. The regulations should not inhibit or cut across the eligibilty provided by it.
I suggest that eligibility under the Act is specifically laid down under four headings: first, to specify the amounts of any payments; second to provide that the amounts may vary with the circumstances; third, to provide the manner in which the claims may be made; and, fourth, to lay down the period in which reconsideration of a determination may be made, together with "incidental, supplementary transitional" provisions to these ends. In other words, the regulations should not in any way limit eligibility. It is important that this message goes from the House today so that if the matter arises in the courts they may be clear on the interpretation. I hope that the Minister accepts that the Act—not the regulations—is definitive in the matter of interpretation. I see that I am carrying him with me in this matter.
Next, I raise the matter of those who have worked in more than one quarry or industry. A man may have worked for a period of only 12 months for a company that is still carrying on, but worked after that for 30 years in one that went defunct. Does the fact that one company is still in operation debar people from obtaining compensation under the regulations and the Act? I hope that there will be a degree of discretion and that the Minister will use the discretion that is available to him under the Act.
I next refer to people who were alive on 5 July, who made proper applications under the Act but who subsequently died. Sadly, there are numbers of such examples in my constituency. I should like an assurance that, if they made applications in full and properly before they died, the money that would have been paid to them would be paid to their estates.
There is worry about the scale of compensation for people who suffered from tuberculosis, particularly when the person's death was not ascribed to pneumoconiosis. The widows of men who died in their forties will receive only the £725 safety net payment. That is a weakness in the scales laid down in the regulations. I hope that the cases of


TB sufferers who did not die as a result of pneumoconiosis, but who may have been suffering substantially from it before death, will be reconsidered. I know of a man in my constituency who died in his forties. His widow is likely to receive only about £700 compensation.
If a man, who suffers from pneumoconiosis when alive, dies, and the question of cause of death is taken to the court, does that debar his widow from compensation under sections 2(1)(c)and 2(4), even though the question of his eligibility prior to death has not been taken to the court? I hope that the Act will not be administered in that way, even though the wording suggests that it will be.
I should like an assurance that the widows who got £300 as a lump sum on the death of their husbands under the old Act will not be debarred. I am sure that that will not be so, and that they will be treated in the same way as those who are now receiving the additional 55p on their weekly pensions. I should also like an assurance that the Government will make adequate financial provision to cover the implications of the Act.
I ask the Minister to use his discretion, wherever possible, as generously as he can, to limit any feeling of people being unfairly treated through no fault of their own. Money will not bring back those who have died and it will not give men their health back, but it can at least lessen the burden of groups of workers and widows who have suffered for far too long.

Mr. James Lamond: I join with those Members who have welcomed these regulations. They are one further step—perhaps not the final step, but an important step—in the long struggle, in my constituency in particular, in the interests of people suffering from byssinosis. I spoke to the trade unions in Oldham about this matter and they told me that they estimate that at least 4,000 people in the metropolitan borough of Oldham are suffering from byssinosis.
Therefore, it will be understood that this is an important measure for those people. They have been waiting since the Act was passed just before the general election, not impatiently, because

they are not impatient people, but with some anxiety. I regret to say that their feeling was that the Tory Government might try to avoid the payment of lump sum compensation. However, I do not share that distrust. I assured my constituents that they would receive their payments in due course. The Labour Government made certain of that by passing the Act; it was one of the last things that they did.
I understand why there has been a long delay in producing the regulations. I congratulate the Minister on his explanation of them and appreciate the care that has gone into trying to compile fair regulations with a proper balance in the amounts of compensation that are to be paid. However, there are a few points I should like to comment on, some of which have already been mentioned.
The point at which the assessment is made is important. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about this. People will look at the regulations and say "If only I had delayed my application for a year or two I would have been eligible for substantially more compensation". The Minister covered that point. He said that he felt that it would not be fair on new applicants and so as not to be unfair to them he produced a table which, in my opinion, is unfair on some who have suffered for a long time.
I wonder whether those new applicants would have felt that they had been unfairly dealt with if they knew that others who had suffered for a long time had received more compensation than them because of something that could have been easily explained to them. As these regulations are put into operation, I hope that matters of this kind will be borne in mind. Any anomalies that are thrown up by the application of the regulations will, I hope, be looked at by the Government and perhaps some amendments to them will be brought in, at which point we might discuss this matter again.
I mentioned earlier that the struggle for those suffering from byssinosis had been going on for many years. Tonight I had a chance meeting with Lord Hale, who was Leslie Hale, the Member of Parliament for Oldham, West for many years—from 1945 to 1968, I believe. He told me of occasions on which lie had raised the question of compensation for


byssinosis sufferers. He had spoken on Adjournment debates on this matter.
I also raised the issue on an Adjournment debate at least four years ago, and we have had other debates in the House. Max Madden, who was formerly the Member for Sowerby, was particularly interested in those who worked in the asbestos industry, and he played a part in getting compensation for them. Another former colleague, Mike Noble, who represented Rossendale, was interested in compensation for byssinosis sufferers. Many former Members have played a part in trying to achieve these things, and now that the day has arrived I am sure that, although they are now outside the House, they will welcome it as warmly as we do.
One of the parts of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 which gives rise to some concern in my constituency was touched upon by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. Section 2(b) provides
that every relevant employer of his has ceased to carry on business;
If this is strictly observed, it will cut down the number of workers who can claim compensation, particularly in the textile industry where it is common for people to work for a large number of small firms, then go to a larger firm. Although the smaller firms are no longer in existence, it is quite possible that the larger one is. Many people are anxious in case they are disallowed compensation because one of their firms is still in existence.
I understand that the reason for the section is that it is expected that workers could sue the existing firm for a lump sum of compensation. However, I have discovered that in the textile industry no successful case has ever been pursued against a firm. There have been a number of cases in which an out-of-court settlement has been obtained, but as no case has ever been brought successfully in the courts there is no precedent that can be used by other workers who wish to do the same thing. I hope that the Secretary of State, in interpreting these regulations, will act generously in this matter.
Finally, I turn to the question of publicity. This is important as there has

been a lot of talk in Oldham already. Many people come to my "clinic" and ask about this matter. Only last Friday three people came to ask about the progress being made. However, a number of people are still unaware of the possibility of making claims. When the Department considers the publicity which should be given, I hope that Ministers, in addition to using trade union journals, will use newspapers such as the Oldham Chronicle, the daily newspaper in my constituency. Although it does not have a wide general circulation, it has a wide readership in the areas where the byssinosis sufferers live. Therefore, I hope that Ministers will give the widest publicity to this issue to ensure that those who should benefit from these welcome regulations do so.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming these regulations, albeit a little belatedly. My particular concern relates to asbestosis in East London, where this malady gives rise to a good deal of anxiety and controversy. It causes mesothelioma of the chest—a cancer induced by asbestos dust. It is not always easy to determine to what extent the cancer was induced by this or other causes. It is associated particularly in port areas with workers who have been working on refrigeration plant and the boiler lagging of ships or, more recently, in cold stores. As this work is often carried out by contractors and firms that rise, fall and go out of business, and as some of the workers work on a semi-casual basis, there have been difficulties up to now in the implementation of the regulations. I am sure that these regulations will be of great assistance.
Of course, they will not always be of assistance to the families of those who have been so affected, because until fairly recently the risk from asbestos was not as widely known as it is now. Wives shaking out workmen's clothing even exposed themselves and children to the risk.
I join those of my colleagues who have drawn attention to the apparent inconsistencies in the findings of the medical panels in this respect. If it is possible, I should like to know whether the Minister is really satisfied with what has been going on. In the London area in particular, there has been a high proportion of so-called non-diagnosis of asbestosis.


I hope that he will have a look at this and, if not now, then in the not too distant future will tell us whether he is satisfied with what is going on. If he is, I hope that he will have another look within about 12 months.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how he wishes to carry out publicity. I am quite sure that the Oldham Chronicle is an admirable newspaper, but its circulation is not very great in East London. Perhaps the Minister, whose constituency is nearer those parts, will tell us how he intends to ensure that everyone who is entitled to compensation will be able to know the exact machinery.
I think that the House is now well aware of the concern about asbestosis. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees that the white, brown and blue varieties are risky. This very Chamber in which we speak has recently had some repairs, and those of us who came here in the Summer Recess will know that great efforts were made to ensure that we did not breathe the asbestos that would be removed from the roof. I tabled a parliamentary question about the working conditions of our Clerks, who were supposed to be at risk, as, indeed, they were. But the amount of asbestosis fibres which were discovered in the air was well within the existing limits specified in the regulations.
That must give rise to a question. If we take steps to ensure that changes are made, even when the fibres in the atmosphere are well within the health limits, it is the duty of this House not only to ensure that those who have succumbed and are eligible for these payments get them, but also that those who are still exposed to this risk are exposed to the minimal risk contemplated. If we in this House take steps to deal with this matter, we have a moral responsibility in every direction. In that regard, perhaps the Minister will comment on what has appeared in The Guardian today. He may not wish to, but if he can deny what is said there concerning the factory inspectorate, I am sure that that will be welcome.
In these days of inflation, I wonder whether the Minister can give any indication with regard to any conceivable up rating in the figures that appear in the appendices. It may be too early for him to do so, although it may not be too early

for him to give an indication as to the basis on which any such revision might be made.
These are welcome regulations. I trust that at some later stage we shall have better regulations than those at present for those who are still exposed to these debilitating and destructive diseases.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Those of us who have been involved with this issue, both inside and outside the House, are extremely pleased to see these regulations debated.
On the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill in 1974, we discussed the scheme then proposed by the Government for the National Coal Board, which arose from the tripartite agreement between the NCB, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Government. At that time, many of us modelled our scheme for other groups—slate quarry men, iron ore workers, asbestosis victims and others—on that NCB scheme. Those of us who took that line are glad that the Government have taken this course and are modelling the regulations on the NCB's scheme, whilst at the same time improving on it in order to benefit these specific groups.
We always experience difficulty in debating regulations because they are unamendable. Those who have been critical of the regulations have therefore prefaced their remarks by saying that they do not wish to do anything that will further delay the regulations. I shall similarly preface my remarks.
I deal first with the regulations concerning those disabled by the disease. In section 2(1)(b) of the Act reference is made to "every relevant employer" and to the entitlement qualification that every relevant employer has ceased to carry on business. The reference made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) to the textile industry is appropriate to the slate quarrying industry, particularly as it is organised in areas such as Blaenau Ffestiniog and Merioneth where there are many small and some larger quarries involving a great mobility of labour—particularly craftsmen—between quarries. I have a number of cases on file of people who have worked for 18 months or two years in a quarry before moving on to another. They may work


in as many as seven or eight different quarries.
The companies involved have a chequered and varied history—hanes brith iown. Some people have worked for most of their lives in companies that have gone out of business. However, some may have also worked for two years in a company which is still in existence. That company can still be litigated against or sued.
I appreciate that this area is not specifically covered by legislation, but I seek clarification from the Minister as to what "every relevant employer" means. Does it cover someone who has spent only two years working for an employer who is still in existence? That period may be relevant in terms of his employment in the slate quarry industry but hardly in terms of a period in which the disease could be contracted. The effect of working for those two years early in life would not be relevant when compared to a period of 30 years as the disease progressed under another employer. That is a crucial issue for many of the applicants.
I am concerned also at the Department's statement that of those who have applied—there is a list of 2,324 claims received as on 5 December—a significant proportion of the claims do not satisfy the entitlement conditions. Many of us are concerned that entitlement may be prevented in many cases.
There is a further danger that claimants may fall between the existing provisions of being able to sue existing employers and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act. Indeed, I am concerned that some companies that are still in existence are trying to make this Act a scapegoat. I have a letter from Elwyn Jones and Company, the solicitors who act for most of the claimants in the Merioneth constituency who are members or former members of my union, the Transport and General Workers' Union. They talk of correspondence that they have had with the lawyers acting for J. W. Greaves Ltd. of Llechwedd slate quarry. It is a quarrying company which has had the added incentive in recent years of massive profits and, indeed, public expenditure for the tourism side of its investments. As the solicitors write, this very successful

company is saying to solicitors acting on behalf of claimants going to them with a view to taking up legal action under legislation apart from this scheme:
They say that they
—the company—
do not accept any liability in respect of your claim. They regard this as being a claim to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979.
That kind of statement is intolerable. If existing companies are trying to make this Act the excuse for not accepting their liability and trying to fob off genuine claimants with letters of that kind, we are in a serious position. That is why the question of "relevant employer" is relevant to our debate on these regulations.
I come to the determination date. I suppose that this is the only major bone of contention between the Minister and ourselves on this issue. Although we have had a lot of argument about this, I still take the view that the determination date could have been worked in a different way, in a way that would have been more beneficial to the majority of the older claimants.
Here again, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, East. I am certain that if we had taken the best available date for each individual claimant—which was the system that we proposed in our discussions—there would have been a significant improvement for some individuals. I am thinking of two particular friends of mine in Blaenau Ffestiniog who are in this position. One of them is 59 years old, turning 60. He has now progressed to 70 per cent. If he had his payment on the existing assessment, he would be in a much better position than he will be when having it under his initial assessment, done, in his case, 10 years ago. It is the progression point that was put so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
I understand the argument. It is one of equity between new claimants and old claimants. But I think that there is also such a concept as historic justice which one can introduce here, and to be fair to the older men who have suffered over a longer period is, in a sense, more important than to be seen to be fair to the new claimants. Of course, the older men will be in the majority. The majority of


the claimants come into the category of the friend that I have just described. It is a minority who will be what are described as new claimants who have only recently been referred to the pneumoconiosis medical board for determination and the payment of industrial injury or disablement benefit from the Department of Health and Social Security.
I understand the difficulty that only one payment is made. But taking that point, should not the one payment be the most beneficial payment to the claimant? The average cost would probably work out at something similar. I am not tonight advocating an increase in public expenditure for one group. I see that the Secretary of State for Wales accepts that point. I do not think that it would affect the total cost of the scheme, but it would certainly affect the individual payment to many of the older people who will benefit from it.
I accept that the Department has attempted to give figures that reflect progression. There is the point that they are 60 per cent. higher than the comparable figures in the National Coal Board scheme. But this does not meet the serious problem of the older claimants in respect of this scheme. In the DHSS industrial injuries scheme, we have provision for unforeseen aggravation, for going back. Indeed, many of the pneumoconiosis claimants have used this unforeseen aggravation in order to meet the extensive progression that they have experienced in the disease. I only wish that there was some kind of unforeseen aggravation provision written into these regulations.
I shall not delay the House too long, as I know that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) wants to deal with the subject of water, but there are one or two further issues that I should like to raise.
The figures in these regulations—and I also pointed this out on Second Reading of the Bill on the coal industry—do not reflect the levels of out-of-court settlements made by companies. The legal argument is that a notional figure has to be set because these people are receiving compensation having only filled in an application form. They have not had to go through the courts. As in the case of the NCB scheme, however, these figures

are 20 to 30 per cent. below settlements obtained out of court.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), is present, and I know that people in his constituency have benefited from out-of-court settlements with existing companies. I am sure that he will confirm that the level of those settlements is substantially higher than that obtaining under this scheme.
I come finally to the question of determination in the case of dependants. I wish to underline a point made about the role of pneumoconiosis medical panel in these determinations. In the regulations the panel is being given a greater statutory position than is normal in the determination of industrial injuries, and I object to that most strongly.
To take the analogy of determination of death benefit in the DHSS's industrial injuries scheme, that benefit is determined by the insurance officer and not by the medical panel. When coming to a decision, the insurance officer, as the statutory authority, is able to take account of all evidence. I quote from a decision of the national insurance commissioner:
The question whether death results from pneumoconiosis is one to be decided by the statutory authorities. They have an unfettered discretion and are certainly not bound to follow the opinion of a pneumoconiosis medical panel".
In these regulations the Secretary of State is being fettered to the pneumoconiosis medical panel, which is quite unacceptable.
In a distressing case in my constituency there was disagreement between the pneumoconiosis medical panel and the coroner after a pathological examination had been conducted. A Mr. Roberts had died from a heart attack and the coroner found that the presence of silicosis was a factor in death, but the pneumoconiosis medical panel disagreed. In a letter of 30 May 1978, the coroner, Mr. Pritchard-Jones, says:
This case highlights what has become a rather embarrassing difference of opinion between Doctor Wayte"—
who is the pathologist in Gwynedd"—
and myself on the one part and the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel on the other over the question of what constitues Pneucomoniosis being a 'factor' in death. The opinion that Dr. Wayte and myself hold is that if the presence of silicosis either reduces a man's life


expectancy or reduces his chance of recovering from some other illness then it must be a factor in death. The Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel do not appear to hold this view as they have had several cases where there has been a difference of opinion but unfortunately the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel never give reasons for their opinions nor do they give any interpretation of the word 'factor'. I do have the power to subpoena Members of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel to attend Inquests and to give reasons for their decisions and the result of their examination but I have not done this due to the fact that I do not consider it to be necessary for the purposes of the Inquest. I consider that my own Pathologists have in the past been as experienced as most Members of the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel in dealing with Pneumoconiosis cases and are in fact in a better position than Members of the Panel to decide whether Pneumoconiosis was a factor or not…I consider that my own Pathologists are in a far better position to assess the effect of Pneumoconiosis than a Doctor who merely sees the lungs. This difference of opinion has undoubtedly caused hardship to families concerned due to the fact that a finding that Pneumoconiosis was a factor in death at an Inquest naturally makes the family assume that a Pension will automatically follow.
This particularly distressing case is relevant to our discussion of the regulations.
It is essential that the independence of statutory authorities to decide claims should be preserved, whether by a DHSS scheme in the case of death benefit or by the decision of a coroner, who is an independent judicial officer who determines the cause of death. He is able to rely on evidence from different sources, in particular, from the pathologist's report. All these factors should be taken into account whenever there is a decision on the cause of death. Statutory authorities—certainly the Minister—should not be bound, as seems to be the case, by the regulations.
Here, at last, there is a measure of justice. We would have liked to see that justice being done far earlier, 20 or 30 years ago—indeed, before some hon. Members who now represent quarrying areas were born. We would like to see fairer and more thorough justice done, particularly for the older group of claimants. We are concerned that outstanding cases may not be covered by the regulations, and we are concerned about some cases where the determination may be unfair to the claimants.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I wish briefly to follow the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in referring to regulations 4 and 5. Undoubtedly some misgiving is felt about the implication in respect of the freedom of manoeuvre of the Secretary of State.
There is no doubt that these cases cause a great deal of heartache among many widows of pottery workers. I spoke today on the telephone to a widow who nursed her husband for many years. He was alleged to be suffering from emphysema and bronchitis. When he died, the coroner received a report from the pathologist which clearly stated that death was due to pneumoconiosis. Only today—some months later—the senior medical officer of the pneumoconiosis and silicosis medical panel telephoned her to say that that was wrong and that the death certificate should have recorded that he had died from cancer.
I do not wish to get involved in disputes between medical authorities. The coroner in my constituency is undoubtedly a charismatic figure. He has made a massive contribution to alleviating the suffering of the workers in the pottery industry. The pathologist is a dedicated and competent professional who has carried out post mortems for many years. I am equally satisfied that those who work in the narrow field of pneumoconiosis on the medical panel are just as professional. I am not concerned about differences of opinion between experts bringing medicine into disrepute. I am concerned about the massive emotional impact inflicted on the bereaved who receive from the pathologist and the coroner a death cerificate stating that pneumoconiosis was the cause of death, only to be told some months later that, in effect, death was due not to that disease at all but to something else.
I hope that the regulations do not tie the hands of the Secretary of State tighter than they are tied at present. Something should be done to resolve the difficult problems that arise in these cases and I should like the Secretary of State to be given more freedom of action as an arbiter, and certainly more than is implied in the regulations.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the regulations and congratulating the Minister on his presentation.
I am concerned about regulations 4 and 5. The findings of the pneumoconiosis panels have often brought the authority of the coroner's court into disrepute. I always understood that the reason for the existence of the coroner's court is that it determines the cause of death.
When a person has been certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis and has been given a pension, one can imagine the distress caused to dependants when, after a coroner's court has found, on the advice of a pathologist, that pneumoconiosis was the cause of death, a third party decides that the death was not caused by the disease.
I stress the sense of injustice felt by those who are satisfied by a coroner's decision that their loved ones have died of pneumoconiosis and the panel debars them from their rightful entitlement. I hope that something can be done to eliminate that problem.

Mr. Alec Jones: I welcome the regulations, which is not unexpected since the Act that gave birth to them was passed by the previous Government. I welcome them particularly because they not only contain provisions for the slate quarry men in Wales, who have suffered for a long time, but offer a degree of justice and fair play to a whole range of people from many other parts of the United Kingdom, from those working in the cotton industry to sufferers of asbestosis to those in the iron ore industry.
I pay tribute to Max Madden, my former hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. I served as a Minister in the DHSS and I know the efforts that he made on behalf of those who suffer from asbestosis. The regulations are dependent on the Act, and I also wish to pay tribute and express my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who made several visits to North Wales, met many people from Blaenau Ffestiniog and other areas and was convinced by the justice of their demands, expressed eloquently and with the right degree of modesty, that something should be done.
I am grateful that the regulations have been introduced to put flesh on to the Act. The regulations and the Act indicate that there are still many major gaps in our provision for industrial injuries, but they have at least helped to close that gap.
I am pleased, as a representative of a South Wales constituency with mainly mining problems, that the payments are generally at least equal to those in the National Coal Board scheme.
Since my hon. Friends are no doubt anxious to hear the Minister's reply, I shall conclude my remarks. I welcome the regulations as I welcomed the Act. They represent a real step forward. They provide a measure of justice to people who have suffered for a long time. Most of those who have spoken in the debate welcome them in spite of our misgivings on one or two narrow points. I hope that the payments under the Act will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Mayhew: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made.
I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) for his welcome of the Bill and for the congratulations that he offered to the officials in my Department who have worked with great industry and great skill at compiling regulations that are fraught with complexities. The issues have been very difficult and his words will be most gratefully received, I know.
The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint of the time that has been taken to produce the regulations. I am grateful that he expressed his understanding of that.
He and other hon. Gentlemen have asked that further publicity should be given to the availability of this compensation. That is an important matter because of the period of 12 months from the coming into force of the Act during which these claims must be made. We are conscious of that. The latest figure available to me for claims that have been made is 2,434. I am told that the claims have now dwindled to a trickle, or even less. It is thought that the existence of the regulations and the availability of the compensation is widely known in the areas where potential claimants live. This matter will be kept under review. We do not


have plans for specific renewal of publicity, but we shall see how matters develop. At the moment rather more claimants have surfaced than were expected. I think that about 1,500 were anticipated, but we shall keep this question in mind.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any figures to indicate how many of the applicants so far suffer from byssinosis?

Mr. Mayhew: In round figures, the number is 1,200 in respect of byssinosis. The round figure for slate is 600, for pottery 200 and for asbestos about 50, of which 10 are diffuse mesothelioma. The total number of claimants who have so far been told that they are ineligible is 194.
Much has been said by way of dissatisfaction and anxiety about the pneumoconiosis medical panels. As the right hon. Member for Doncaster fairly and accurately acknowledged, they are not the responsibility of the Department of Employment. What has been said, however, will certainly be noted by those who are responsible for those panels. I say in fairness that we do not have any evidence to suggest that there is any lack of diligence or skill on the part of the panels in carrying out their responsibilities.
The statute requires as one of the conditions of entitlement that disablement benefit should be payable to a living sufferer in respect of the disease. That disablement benefit can be obtained only upon the finding of the pneumoconiosis medical board. One of the reasons why the board is employed throughout the jurisdiction is that considerable difficulties could arise were one decision to be taken on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Services and another subsequently on behalf of the Secretary of State for Employment. It is obviously desirable to avoid difficulty of that kind.

Mr. Golding: Will the Minister direct his attention to what happened in a comparable situation in coal mining? The solution there, I understand, when a pension had been paid during the life, was that the coroner, on the advice of the pathologist, certified that the death had occurred as a result of the disease and that there be no further inquiries—in effect, that the case be not referred to the pneumoconiosis panel.

We are arguing not about the niceties or technicalities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said, but about a great deal of distress in families after the death of the individual and what seems to be a decision of the panel that the coroner or pathologist was wrong, and perhaps the pension itself was wrong.

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that point. The difference between the NCB scheme and this scheme is that the NCB scheme was wholly voluntary, whereas this one depends for its validity on statutory provisions. But I understand the point and will take note of it.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister regarding regulation 4, paragraphs (4) and (5), where it is said that certain matters shall not be open to the Secretary of State and on which the pneumoconiosis panels have taken a certain line? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that section 5 of the Act gives him power to reconsider the determination where there has been a material change in circumstances, and that that section would overrule regulation 4, paragraph (4) or (5), as appropriate?

Mr. Mayhew: The discretion given by section 5 of the Act relates to new circumstances, and I am advised that a new circumstance would not be represented by, for example, a finding of a coroner which was in conflict with the finding of the pneumoconiosis medical board. It would have to be a new fact of a different character. The discretion vested in the Secretary of State depends upon the Act itself. In broad terms, I understand, it is limited to this. Where the basic foundation for an entitlement is established by evidence but there are marginal matters which are incapable of being ascertained, the Secretary of State has a discretion not, as it were, to shut a claimant out from an award. But the Secretary of State is not, so to speak, permitted to take into his own hands the question whether someone shall be deemed to be entitled or not. I have no doubt that that is a wise provision in the Act.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) asked also about publicity, and I have dealt with that. I believe that the fact that this compensation is available is adequately known, but we shall keep that in mind.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) asked a good many questions. I shall attempt to deal with them, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with them all. I have given my reply on the question of discretion. The hon. Gentleman next asked whether it was the case that the regulations could make provision only for matters which were, as it were, within the vires of the Act. I agree with that, of course.
The hon. Gentleman then raised the question of someone who worked for more than one quarry—or, in many cases, for a large number of quarries—and whether a claim was defeated solely by reason of the fact that there remained in existence one company for which a man had worked at a time during which the disease had been developing. The answer to that is "Yes", and that is something that we owe to the wording of the statute, which was not our statute. The statute makes it perfectly clear that if there is one employer still in existence in that category, that precludes a claim. That is to be found in section 2 of the Act"—
every relevant employer of his has ceased to carry on business".
"Relevant employer" is defined in subsection (3) as
any person by whom he was employed at any time during the period during which he was developing the disease and against whom he might have or might have had a claim for damages in respect of the disablement.
I am afraid that in formulating these regulations we have not been able to go behind the wording of the statute, for the very reasons concerning vires that the hon. Member was raising in another context.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon then asked whether a claim will survive for the beneficiaries of an estate in the case of someone who, though entitled, had not made his application in time, before he died. The answer, as I understand it, is that the claim will survive to his beneficiaries and in the amount which would have been appropriate to him had he survived to make the claim.
The hon. Member also asked about tuberculosis sufferers. It was a rather technical point about those who suffered from tuberculosis and who died, not as a result of pneumoconiosis, but who had suffered from pneumoconiosis for a considerable time before they died. I think

that he has a particular case in mind, arising from a constituency matter, about which I have written to him, although I do not believe that he will have yet received the letter. I hope that my letter will deal with the case he has in mind. I am sure that he will let me know if it does not.
The hon. Member also asked about widows who receive £300 under the old cases scheme—would they be shut out from the Act or would they be within its scope? I can tell him that they will be covered by the scheme. He also asked whether the Government would make funds available for the scheme. That is the easiest of questions to answer. The answer is "Yes, the Government will make the funds available." The estimated cost under this scheme is just under £11 million, which compares with the £4·7 million estimated as being the cost by the previous Government. In these days of financial stringency, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster was kind enough to acknowledge, that is a remarkable indication of the importance which this Government as well attach to meeting the claims for compensation of this unfortunate class of person.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) has important constituency interests in byssinosis. He asked whether every employer must be out of business. That is a point I have already dealt with. This, unfortunately, is the case under the provisions of section 2 of the Act. The hon. Member raised a point about publicity, with which I have already dealt.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised a question about the pneumoconiosis medical board and I do not wish to add to what I have said about that. He also raised a case, which was new to me, of a company attempting to use the Act to, as he put it, "fob off claims" made, I suppose under common law or statute, for compensation. There is nothing in the regulations or the Act which entitles any company or provides a defence to any company that is potentially liable in negligence or for breach of statutory duty to escape its liabilities towards any claimant in respect of these diseases.
As to the determination date, the hon Member for Newham, South reverted to the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon as to why we have chosen


the date of first assessment. I understand the point. What is, in short, really being said is "Why cannot we have a scheme in which someone may choose whichever is the most beneficial to him of two bases?" One would be the date of first assessment and the other the date of last assessment. I tried to deal with that in outline when introducing the regulations. We believe it to be important that we should try to achieve justice as between claimant and claimant. There will be some claimants who have had a recent assessment; there will be others who, perhaps, contracted the disease and were diagnosed a long time ago and have not had a recent assessment. That would be one distinction which would cause grievance.
Another is this. On the evidence of 50 case histories, not of claimants under the Act, average payments to living sufferers in slate cases would be increased by about 30 per cent. or £1,000 only if later assessments were to be used when they produced a higher amount, even using the tables now proposed. But the differential increase for the lower percentage assessments was introduced because latest assessments would not be taken into account.
The comparison between payments as now proposed and those if latest assessments were taken into account but with a straight 100 per cent. increase on all National Coal Board figures would show a much smaller difference. A small minority of applicants would receive far more, but a larger number would receive somewhat less. I understand the points that are made, but it is extraordinarily difficult to arrive at a system for entitling compensation which meets every case in a way which is patently just and correct.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has constituency interests. He asked about the case of more than one employer—I have dealt with that—and about what "relevant employer" means, and I have dealt with that. He also raised an important new point—that the figures under the tables do not represent anything like what can be awarded by the courts. As he knows, the damages which are awarded by the courts are awarded upon a finding of full liability. They take into account not only pain and

suffering but loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings.
It is, of course, a major advantage of this scheme that in order to qualify one does not have to show that there was breach of statutory duty, and one does not have to show that there is a breach of common law duty. Inevitably, therefore, the awards which are made under this scheme will, rightly, be substantially less to take account of that distinction.
I hope I shall not be thought discourteous if I do not reply to any of the remaining points raised by the hon. Gentleman, save to thank him for the welcome he has given to the regulations, and also to thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster for his kind remarks and congratulations on the presentation of this measure.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I refer to the question of determination of cause of death. The hon. and learned Gentleman made the point, which I accept, that this is a statutory scheme and the NCB scheme was a voluntary scheme and therefore did not require determination of cause of death or establishment of claim on a statutory basis, but I mentioned the analogy of the statutory basis of the insurance officer who was an independent figure within the DHSS system in determining whether death benefit was to be paid. He was independent of the pneumoconiosis panel, of the pathologist and of the coroner. Does the Minister not accept the analogy and hold in this case that the Minister, or the Department determining on his behalf, should have this degree of independence and not be tied to the findings of the doctors on the pneumoconiosis medical panel, as appears to be the case in regulation 4(5)?

Mr. Mayhew: The difficulty is that where there is a statutory tying-in to a disability benefit, which has to be awarded only on the finding of a pneumoconiosis panel, it is very difficult to switch to the findings of some other officer for the purpose of determining the cause of death.
I recognise what was said by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, as must everybody, that no sums of money will compensate for the pain and suffering, still less for the death of someone, as a result of these dreadful diseases. All we can


try to do is our best within the limitations of financial stringency which are imposed upon us. These regulations go some way, at any rate, to rectifying a major lacuna in our law, and I am grateful to those who have given care to them tonight. If I have omitted to deal with any points, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned. I am grateful for the reception given to the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WATER CHARGES

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I beg to move,
That the draft Water Charges Equalisation Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 December, be approved.
The order was laid under powers vested in the Secretary of State under the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977. The House will be aware that this is the third order to be laid in draft under that Act. It relates to the calendar year 1980. Similar draft orders were approved by resolution of the House in December 1977 for operation in 1978 and in December 1978 for operation in 1979.
I see many of my hon. Friends in the Chamber—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Too true.

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is, as usual, quite right.
In introducing the draft order, I make it clear from the outset that it is the last full order that the Government intend making under the enabling Act of 1977. I realise that that will be a great disappointment to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), as the Act was his brainchild. Perhaps that accounts for its failure.
I propose briefly to deal with the details of the draft instrument that is before us. As in the case of the two orders made previously, the order directs certain named water authorities and water companies to pay specified equalisation levies to the National Water Council. It further directs the National Water Council to pay over the aggregate of those levies to certain other named water undertakers in the form of equalisation payments of specified amounts. These levies and payments will be payable in four equal quarterly instalments beginning on 15 May 1980.
The main features of the scheme used to calculate the levies and payments are the same as last year. The relevant financing costs of water undertakers—that is to say, the interest and depreciation relating to capital expenditure incurred before 31 March 1976 in the provision of unmeasured water supply—are


divided by the number of premises receiving an unmeasured water supply. This gives a unit cost—both an average unit cost across the whole of England and Wales and an individual unit cost for each water authority and company. Undertakers with a unit cost below the national average pay into the equalisation pool. Undertakers with a unit cost above the national average receive from the pool.
The calculations involved are highly detailed and have to be entrusted to a computer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that hon. Members would respond in that way. I hesitated before using the word "computer". A minor change needs 38 sums to correct it. That being so, perhaps hon. Members will question the whole basis of the scheme. The transfers shown in the present draft order—unlike those in the two previous orders—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members to listen carefully because the order is rather different from the two orders that the Labour Government introduced.
The transfers, unlike those in the two previous orders, are arrived at by two separate calculations of the sort that I have described. The first and major calculation relates to the 1980 scheme itself. The calculation is made on the basis of best estimates obtained from all the water undertakers in detailed questionnaires. However, because the figures are based only on estimates, the Secretary of State is required by section 3(3) of the Act to determine the extent of any discrepancy between these estimates and the final figures as soon as practicable after the undertakers have completed their accounts. The Act also requires the Secretary of State to make any necessary adjustments to take account of these differences when determining levies and payments for future years.
This brings me to the second element in the calculations behind the draft order. For the first time, we now have the water undertakers' final figures for the 1978 scheme year and are able to work out the adjustments needed to correct the original transfers, which were given effect by the 1977 order on the basis of estimated figures. These correcting adjustments for 1978, when combined with the estimated transfers for 1980, produce the

various levies and payments in the schedules to the present draft order.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that, given the agreement of certain people in the House and the disagreement of some others with what is proposed, it is rather important that as much time as possible should be given to those of us who want to express disagreement with the orders?

Mr. Fox: Yes, indeed. I shall be as quick as I can.
I should add that the final figures for 1978 were supplied by the individual water undertakers, in the form of a detailed questionnaire certified by their external auditors. Not all undertakers have the same accounting year, and so the entire body of information needed to complete the calculations has only become available very recently. This is why it has been necessary to lay the draft order so near to the Christmas Recess. I should have liked to be in a position to let hon. Members have more time to consider the draft, but, given the very tight timetable which the scheme imposes, this was just not possible.
For the information of the House, a final point about the mechanics of the scheme concerns a couple of minor changes this year in the definitions and methods used to arrive at the equalisation transfers. As part of the consultation process with the water industry, a working group was set up earlier this year—comprising officials from the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, and representatives of the National Water Council, the regional water authorities and the Water Companies Association. The group recommended changes in the way that premises are defined for the purposes of the scheme and that undertakers should use the revised definition when supplying final figures for the 1978 scheme year and figures for subsequent years. The group also recommended that, with effect from the 1980 scheme year, there should be a different treatment of expenditure by undertakers on importing supplies of water from other areas. Accordingly, these two changes have been incorporated in the calculations behind the present draft order.
In response to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I shall now go a little


more slowly, as this is how we see the future of the scheme.
I said earlier that this is the last full order that the Government intend making under the Water Charges Equalisation Act. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to explain briefly the reasons for this decision.
The Water Charges Equalisation Act was introduced by the Labour Government at a time when there was some concern, following the reorganisation of the industry achieved by the Water Act 1973, about the increased level of charges facing some consumers. In a few parts of England, but to a much greater extent in Wales, water charges had been held down at an artificially low level by subsidies from the general rate, which in turn attracted the resources element of rate support grant. This was quite permissible under the legislation at the time, but when it necessarily came to an end with the setting up of the new authorities it brought home to the consumers who were affected the real cost of providing them with mains water. To some extent, the effect of this was subsequently cushioned by the introduction of equalisation across various water authority areas; but this in turn led to increases in other consumers' charges.
The transition to the present situation—in which water is supplied by water authorities and water companies which operate without subsidy—was therefore painful for some consumers in the early stages. In some areas, moreover, the increases appeared to be greater than they actually were when authorities began to switch from the collection of charges along with the general rate demand, which had tended to conceal the true cost, to direct billing.
The previous Government were concerned to alleviate the more acute pains that were felt particularly by consumers in the area of the Welsh National Water Development Authority, now the Welsh Water Authority. I do not criticise the previous Government for their concern, and I would not wish for one moment, in view of the Opposition's actions now, to suggest that perhaps in clinging on to a precarious working majority—as they were doing at that time—they had some incentive to protect their supporters in certain areas.
The 1977 Act was intended to produce some measure of equalisation in bills for

unmeasured water supply—mainly to domestic consumers, though it also affected small businesses—in all parts of England and Wales. It is arguable whether such cross-subsidisation is correct in principle, but I shall leave that question for the moment. The simple problem with the equalisation Act is that it does not work well in practice. Although the previous Government wanted the Act to produce a degree of equalisation between the water bills of domestic consumers—

Mr. Michael English: Is it not true that in some respects the original Act does not work well? In the East Midlands, where we are to get a payment under this order, which the Minister proposes to stop, we have to suffer the pollution thrown into our river. The River Trent is linked to the River Severn, and the people in Birmingham and Burton-on-Trent get relatively pure water from Wales and elsewhere, pollute it and throw it into the Trent so that that river is the most polluted in England. We have to pay for that. We deserve a subsidy from the whole country for having to pay for the most polluted river in England.

Mr. Fox: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gives perhaps the best possible illustration of what nonsense this order is, in that one is trying—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members will listen. The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) will have time to make his own points. How on earth, in an order of this kind, can one cover points such as that which the hon. Member for Nottingham, West made? There are 38 authorities involved in this draft order—10 water authorities and 28 companies, 22 of which pay in and about 16 collect. All we say is that the way in which the order was introduced in March 1976 was so inflexible that there is no way in which it can be changed. The right hon. Member for Rhondda knows that that is true.

Mr. Alec Jones: Are we to understand that the Government are not in favour of this order and that the Welsh Members are not in favour of it?

Mr. Fox: If the right hon. Gentleman had been present at the beginning of my speech, he would have heard me


make it clear that this was the last full order of this kind; and if he will listen carefully to the end of my speech he will find that the Government are saying that an order will be presented in a different form. If he thinks carefully about the original order, he will be aware that certain adjustments are needed to balance out estimates to true figures. But we are not convinced at this stage that what was introduced is the right way of achieving the intention. I do not say that we shall not seek a better solution. There are particular problems in Wales and we accept that. We are introducing this order because there are problems peculiar to Wales. We believe that if one looks at the amount of money involved, and who receives it, it is right that hon. Members should realise that Wales is the main beneficiary—

Mr. Denis Howell: No, it is not.

Mr. Fox: Of course it is. We are simply making the point that we do not seek to desert our friends in Wales.
The 1977 Act was intended to produce some measure of equalisation in bills for unmeasured water supply. Although the previous Government wanted the Act to produce a degree of equalisation in the water bills of domestic consumers, the Act is, in fact, drawn up to equalise only the historic financing costs of water undertakers—the effect of capital expenditure and debts incurred up to 31 March 1976. But, of course, there are several other important cost factors which go to determine the final level of bills. The equalisation Act was not designed to take those other factors into account. As a result, an Act which it was hoped would equalise water bills has, in a large number of cases, had quite the opposite effect.
The draft order works up to a point. It will reduce the extreme ends of the range of unmeasured bills for 1980 and it will move the bills of more than half of the consumers affected nearer to the national average bill. However, it also has the effect of moving the bills of 42 per cent. of consumers away from the national average. Many of those with above-average bills will be required to pay more, and many of those with below-average bills will have them reduced.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services has discussed this matter fully with the Secretary of State for Wales, and they have agreed that an Act which produces such questionable results can really have no future. It can and does produce perverse, absurd, and capricious effects. My right hon. Friends agreed that this would be the last full order under the Act. However, there will have to be at least one more order to tidy up the transfers that have been made before on the basis of estimated figures.
My right hon. Friends also considered very seriously the whole question of the present draft order. On balance, they decided that it should be laid this year because they felt that more time was needed to consider the whole matter. The Government have in mind that the Act itself should be repealed. But before legislation is introduced my right hon. Friends have asked our officials to give urgent consideration to the whole question and recommend what, if anything, might be done in the future. They will seek the views of industry on the matter and they will take full account of those views before coming to a final decision.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In considering what will follow the order and the Act that is now on the statute book, and in view of the fact that Wales is a net exporter of a considerable amount of water and the Conservatives believe in the free economy, will the Minister consider the possibility of allowing Wales to sell its own water at the price it determines and therefore bring Welsh prices down?

Mr. Fox: The policy of previous Governments has always been that the sale of water will be simply done on the basis of the cost of delivering that water to wherever it may be needed. We will certainly consider all these points. I apologise for speaking in so much detail tonight, although I hope that what I have said will convince the House that what we are presenting is not something that we would have introduced in the first place. I ask my hon. Friends to support the order.

Mr. Denis Howell: We have just listened to one of the most remarkable ministerial speeches


that I have heard in 24 years' membership of the House. The Secretary of State for Wales wants to be very careful of his interventions, even at this early stage, because it seems that he is proposing to sell all the Welsh water consumers down the river. It is not just Wales, either.
Let us look at the reasons for the measure being introduced in the first place. It is quite impossible in any national water undertaking to have the sort of bureaucracy introduced by the Conservatives last time they meddled with water. That was the reason for the greatly increased charges. The Tories produced nine separate nationalised industries, each operating with its own bureaucracy. Indeed, it was not just nine bureaucracies for water. We had one for the Health Service and two or three for local government, which were all piled on to the ratepayers at one and the same time. It was that combination of factors which caused ratepayers to express their considerable concern.
The Minister is now seeking to say that he is prepared to justify the wide variations of charges which were produced as a result of water reorganisation. He would not justify that argument in the case of the Post Office, electricity or gas. When people post a letter in Orkney or Shetland, or in Merthyr Tydfil or London, they pay the same postal charge. That is the principle upon which a public service, if it is run in the naional interest, ought to operate. That was the immediate principle behind this order—that people who had a real grievance, particularly in Wales, the South-West, Anglia and Northumbria, should have a measure of justice.
When the Minister says that he is not coming forward with another order, he will have to explain that not only to the people of Wales, to whom he devoted a large part of his speech. He said nothing about the South-West, Anglia, Northumbria or the Midlands—all geographical areas of the country that will benefit considerably from this order. Therefore, the Minister is not just putting forward a Welsh point.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the people of Northumbria were in some way hard done by. How would he justify a measure that has

the effect of reducing the average water rates of people in Northumbria from 18 per cent. below the national average to 25 per cent. below the national average, which is the effect of this measure?

Mr. Howell: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that this order is confined—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering. If hon. Members will listen more patiently they may learn something, otherwise they may go away just as ignorant as they came in, which would be a great pity for all of us.
This measure deals with one half of the water legislation—the supply of wholesome water. As the Secretary of State knows perfectly well, the other half of the measure, particularly in Northumbria where the Tyne and the Tees have to be cleaned up, imposes upon the water users in that part of the country an enormous burden that they have to carry as a result of past industrial activity.
If the Under-Secretary dislikes this order so much, I cannot understand why he has introduced it at this time. What amending legislation does he intend to introduce? In deference to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, he says that we shall not desert our friends in Wales. If we do not help our friends in Wales by means of adjusting charges, how will we bring help to our friends in Wales? There is only one other way—a straightforward subsidy either from the taxpayers or from the ratepayers. The Under-Secretary said that the Government will repeal the Act. However, he has left the House totally ignorant of how to achieve that which he believes to be desirable.
There is one other important reason for the Labour Government's approach in producing such orders. At the end of the day one must have some sort of national strategy for water. [Interruption.] I solved the drought, and I will solve this problem. If the present storms go on much longer, my transfer fee will go up considerably. One cannot have a national strategy for water resources unless there is some degree of co-ordination and national control. Water must be moved round the country, particularly from Wales to the Midlands and to Anglia.
The Under-Secretary of State asked a pertinent question, although I disagreed


with his conclusion. He pointed out that if one does not help the Welsh with supplying not only Wales but England with water and if they are not allowed to charge what they wish for that water, there must be some fairness about the way in which the hardships of Welsh consumers are evened out. That must logically follow. The Secretary of State for Wales agrees. The Welsh cannot exploit the situation and charge the English, particularly in the Midlands and in the North-West, exactly what they wish to charge. As a quid pro quo, in order to be fair to Welsh consumers, we wish to introduce this sort of scheme.
Some of my hon. Friends representing areas that border the Thames will no doubt raise this issue shortly, but even in the London area there must be a national strategy for transporting water, given the increase in both domestic and industrial consumption. It is often suggested that more reservoirs can be built in the Thames valley. However, the environmental objections to building more reservoirs in the Thames valley, Kent and other places increase all the time. As we do not suffer from a shortage of water, the problem is simply one of transporting water from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. If water can be transported so that there are supplies of wholesome water throughout the country, there must be a sensible arrangement to equalise water charges.
That is the basis of the philosophy behind the order. The Ministers' words imply a general subsidy to Wales from the ratepayers and taxpayers. He has not said a word about the South-West, Northumbria and Anglia. The Anglian water authority alone will receive £2,635,000 as a result of this measure. Northumbria will receive £856,000, and, therefore, the Minister proposes a considerable additional burden upon the water users of those four major authorities as well as upon the Midlands authorities.
We shall support the order in the Lobby tonight because it is the logical consequence of having a well-ordered and sensible national water policy. Any alternative to the order would put at risk the national water strategy and would be manifestly unfair to the people of Wales,

the South-West, Anglia, Northumbria and the Midlands.

Mr. David Mudd: I was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) sat down. He was very kind in including the South-West in his arguments. I can think of many occasions from 1974 until the early part of this year on which hon. Members representing parts of Cornwall were making representations about how terrible it was under the system which has been described as being perverse, absurd and capricious, under which it seemed that various people who lived in the Midlands and the North saved up their dirty shirts and their dirty cars to come to Cornwall during the height of the holiday season to use our water supplies to offset their needs, with the result that water consumers in the South-West water authority area were paying increasingly for water charges to provide money through the taps, when the logical outcome of that was a cutback in residential and industrial development which was much needed in the South-West. But no doubt the right hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends will touch on that when the Opposition sum up at the end of this debate.

Mr. Denis Howell: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to assert that people coming on holidays from the Midlands and the North cause problems for him in regard to water, will he tell us what is his assessment of the rateable income which holiday hotels, accommodation, caravans and camps of various sorts provide for his authorities, and not least in the number of jobs they provide for his citizens?

Mr. Mudd: The right hon. Gentleman is most gracious in throwing out that challenge. It is well-known in the South-West that visitors from the Midlands and the North come with a £5 note and a dirty shirt. They change the latter but not the former when they come into the West Country on holiday.
If we are talking about water charges equalisation, it is equally important that we should talk in terms of the equalisation of water resources and of the water authorities in terms of answerability to local ratepayers. Time and again we have,


as I observed somewhat flippantly, perhaps, to the right hon. Gentleman, the problem that as a result of providing the genuine and untapped water supply at the peak of the holiday season, the South-West is forgoing the capital investment for industrial and residential development which is really the backbone to our particular problems in the South-West.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sums up the debate he will deal with this aspect of the Government's thinking as to how the South-Westcan gain in terms of Government investment and Government incentive by way of capital resources rather than merely subsidising the water that comes out of the taps.
My second point is directed more to my hon. Friends than to Opposition Members. It concerns the growing grievance in the South-West about equalisation in terms of cost but no question of equalisation in terms of the democratic answerability of our regional water authorities. Time and again—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will raise exactly the same point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he catches your eye—there is the growing frustration of constituents in Cornwall who say repeatedly "Our water rates are being increased by 50 per cent. What can we do about this?" We have to say "Members of Parliament are totally impotent in this matter. There is no consumer watchdog. There is no one to whom we can refer you in this great agony of your ongoing expenditure."
We hope that when there is a review of water authorities and water resources in the United Kingdom the Government will take on board that it is now long overdue that they should correct one of the massive oversights in the water resources legislation, introduced and passed under a previous Conservative Government, which actually deprived individual consumers of their rights of approach, of representation and of being considered when making reasonable representations about the constantly ongoing and oppressive threats of water authorities in regard to their incomes, their savings and their ability to pay.

Mr. George Cunningham: Enough reference has been made to the dominance of Wales on the recipient side of the balance on

this exchange, Wales receiving about one-third of the pooled fund. There has not been enough mention of the fact that the Thames water authority area—and that means the ratepayers in that area—contributes close on a half, say 45 per cent., of the fund, and a very large part of that comes from the ratepayers of London.
If this order goes through, it will mean that, on average, each of my ratepayers will be forced to chip in £1·30 a year to the common fund. It might be said that £1·30 in a year is not very much, but it has to be seen against the background of the general national position on rates and the gross difference between the rates paid by London ratepayers and the average for the whole of England and Wales, and particularly Wales.
I voted for the Act under which this order is made, partly because the principle behind the Act and the order is to try to equalise charges for equal services. If that principle were applied to rates generally, ratepayers in London would be a great deal better off than they are now. To the credit of the Labour Government, they were gradually moving, year by year, to a situation where on the general rates there was a slightly better equalisation between the rates paid in different areas of the country.
That principle is being reversed this year by the Government, and I cannot bring myself to adopt equalisation as a principle in some small sector of the rating field when it is flagrantly breached and the Government are going in the opposite, direction in the rating field in general. I therefore feel that this order should not pass tonight.
In my borough of Islington, on average general rates amount to a payment of £255 cash per year, which is £5 a week. General rates in Wales amount to £97 a year, which is less than £2 a week. How on earth can I tell someone living in a council flat in my constituency, who is paying £5, and often a good bit more than £5, a week in general rates, that he ought to put his hand into his pocket to find an extra £1·30 to go into a common fund to subsidise still further the ratepayers in Wales, who receive the same subsidies as anybody else, plus an extra domestic element to the domestic ratepayers?

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: As we are dealing with water rates, will the hon.


Gentleman tell us what the water rates are in his constituency compared with the water rates in Wales? I think he will find that the water rates in Wales after equalisation are still higher than those in his constituency.

Mr. Cunningham: I was coming to exactly that comparison. I shall take water rates before coming to general rates.
Let us take the comparison—because these happen to be the figures that I have at hand—between the Thames water area on the one hand and Wales on the other. Last year and this year, according to figures that are publicly available, the variations above and below the average represented by the two areas have been 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. That is to say, ratepayers in Wales paid 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. more than the average between the two areas, and ratepayers in the Thames water area paid 11 or 12 per cent. under the average. It is not a great difference but nevertheless a difference. It would appear from the figures available that in cash terms it amounts to under £5 in one case and around £10 a year in the other. Each ratepayer in Wales is paying between £5 and £10 more for the water service than each ratepayer in London, so the Secretary of State has got his point.
However, what is the situation when we come to general rates? It is nothing like that. There is a variation between those areas, or the nearest that one can get to them—inner London and Wales. In inner London, average rates per hereditament are £311 a year. In Wales, they are £97 a year—£6 a week as against £1·86. That is a variation above and below the average of approximately 52 per cent. Water rates alone cannot be picked out for equalisation when there is no move towards equalisation on the rest. Indeed, this year, there is a move away from that.
The people of London have had a raw deal for many years out of the rating arrangements. The efforts made by the Labour Government to assist inner city areas are now being reversed and it is unjustifiable to impose the extra surcharge upon London ratepayers in order to assist those who pay infinitely less for their services. Also, the domestic ratepayers

in the Thames water authority area are undergoing an additional burden because of the compulsory non-subsidy between the industrial consumer and the domestic consumer. That obligation rests under statute upon the Thames water authority. It is not fair that the domestic ratepayer pays those two surcharges, and it cannot be put across to the ratepayers of London that the subsidy should continue.

Mr. Tony Durant: I am delighted to enter into this short debate because I have been critical of the water authorities and the industry for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) mentioned that there was no direct consumer representation. In fact, I moved a Ten-Minute Bill during the last Parliament to set up a consumers' council but, regrettably, hon. Members did not accept it. It was a pity.
Water equalisation is nonsense. Under the draft statutory instrument we are giving water to the Anglian, Northumbrian, Severn-Trent, South-West and Welsh water authorities. Yet we are taking from private water companies—such as the East Anglian water company—in those areas where we are subsidising. Similarly, with the Hartlepools water company we take away and give it back to the Northumbrian water authority.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does not the hon. Gentlemanrealise that the private sector water companies were included only at the direct request of Conservative Members?

Mr. Durant: That is not relevant to the point I am making. We are talking about difficulties in certain areas of the country and the easier position of other parts of the country with regard to equalisation. I am saying that in the areas where we are subsidising we are also taking water away, whether private water companies are in those areas or not. I make no point about private water companies. For example, in Wales we are taking money out of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company and giving it back to the Welsh water authority. It is the same part of the country. I am illustrating the nonsense of the principle.
There is injustice to the Thames water authority in particular. It will have to meet an enormous bill of almost £4 million, and that is unfair on consumers in one part of the country. It is contrary to the beliefs of Conservative Members. We believe that economic costs should be passed to the consumer. I believe that the Welsh should have to pay their corner towards their water. In the past, the Welsh water authorities—

Mr. David Penhaligon: Has the hon. Gentleman thought out what he is saying? Does herealise what it would cost those in a village of 500 who are 15 miles or so from the nearest waterway to pay for the Conservative principle of fair charges for water? It would be unbelievable.

Mr. Durant: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating to make his point. Following that logic, any company that delivered any goods over a long distance would charge a different amount for them. I do not take that point.
We are told that money is being provided to get a balance in the water rate demands to consumers. If the money were being used to provide more water conservation in order to improve water capabilities and the collection of more water, I might not be so averse to the order. At present we are subsidising some water rates, and I do not believe that that is a sound principle.
The proposals are unfair for those in the Thames valley area. I express that view strongly. I am not keen on the water authorities. They have large offices and live fairly comfortably in their premises all over the country. We ought to be more critical of their role.
We should not necessarily support the scheme. I am delighted that the Minister has said that this is the last such order. That is a concession, and I hope that it is written in strong words in Hansard and that he will not come back next year with another "last time".
The Thames water authority has considerable problems ahead with sewerage. Many of the drains in London were installed in the early 1800s and their life is coming to an end. Large capital expenditure will be required, and I do not suppose that Wales would be keen on helping if we asked for assistance because

of the financial difficulty involved in replacing London's drains.
I am not prepared to vote against the Government. The Minister has at least said that this is the last time that we shall have such an order. The scheme has been unfair and nonsensical.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Almost everyone agrees that the Water Act 1973 created a series of unfair bodies and was one of the disasters of the then Conservative Government.

Mr. James Lamond: It was not the worst.

Mr. Bennett: It was not far short of the worst. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) did not do much better when he brought in the water charges equalisation scheme.
We have a system of grossly unfair charges for water. There is a complete lack of equity in all water charges. They reflect neither consumption nor people's ability to pay. The order makes things worse.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath referred to letters. Of course, letters posted in different parts of the country all have the same charge, but different weights of letters have different charges. We ought to be looking at the ability of people to pay and the amount of water that they consume.
Not only does the order not reflect how much water people consume or their ability to pay, but it does not reflect local costs. We ought to be concerned about those matters rather than geographical areas. What sense is there in saying that a pensioner in Stockport ought to subsidise someone in Wales or East Anglia who may be much more affluent? We ought to take into account an individual's ability to pay and not lump together everyone in a region.
It seems that there is a very strong argument for abolishing the system by which water charges are based on regions and instead basing them upon the ability of the individual to pay. I have tried on many occasions to convince the House that we should introduce a rebate system for people on low incomes, particularly pensioners, in respect of water charges.
This measure is always worked out on a yearly basis, which is grossly unfair. Over the years people in the North-West, particularly in some of the cities, have shown a great deal of foresight in the provision of water services. Over 20 or 30 years they have made a very big contribution. Now they are being asked to make a further contribution for those areas which showed little or no foresight—

Mr. Alec Jones: There is no evidence of that.

Mr. Bennett: There is evidence that a lot of rural areas made no provision for water for a long time, whereas urban areas made provision at the beginning of the century and, as a result, benefit now from a relatively cheap system.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the charge is as much for sewerage as it is for clean water, and that in 1973 the Conservatives took £100 million off the rate support grant in respect of sewerage and imposed it on the consumer through the water rate?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I am well aware of the problems created over sewerage. Before the 1973 Act, at least the sewerage charges attracted a rebate for people on low incomes. That was taken off them again, making it harder for them to meet the charges.
The crazy situation now—certainly in Stockport—is that individual occupiers of dwellings are being asked to pay about £136 to £140, but the rebate brings the figure down to about half what they are being asked to pay for water rates. There is little or no equity in these charges.
We should be moving to a national system for water collection and supply, with a national charge and with local areas responsible for supplying it to individual occupiers—

Mr. Denis Howell: That was in our White Paper.

Mr. Bennett: Our White Paper did not restore supply to local areas. It put supply on a national basis.
Charges should be based on the ability of an individual to pay rather than on the ability of an area to pay. It is time we

voted against the order. If my hon. Friends vote with me, I hope we shall succeed in throwing out the water equalisation charge.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I declare an interest, because, through a company with which I am associated, I have a relationship with the Water Companies Association. My speech tonight, however, does not have much to do with the water companies as such, except in so far as they are involved in the supply of water.
The title of the order might lead one to imagine that as a result of it everyone in the country would be getting his water at approximately the same cost. But, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) knows, that is far from the truth. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made a powerful point about the difference between the rates paid in Wales and the rate paid in London. That clearly shows that if an advantage is gained in one sense it is lost in another, probably to a greater extent than the right hon. Member for Small Heath imagined when he pressed the parent Act upon the House.
I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on what he has told the House tonight. I am glad that this is the last time that the order can come before the House, and I welcome his statement and the forthrightness of his speech. But, of course, although we say that this is the last time that such an order will come before the House, the question of water charges and the structure of charging for water remains. That, I think, is a much more thorny problem than perhaps any of us, including the right hon. Member for Small Heath, imagined.
As more and more people become concerned about the cost of water—it was certainly one of the issues which arose most frequently on the doorstep in my constituency during the last election campaign—more and more people will want a system of charging based not upon rateable value but on the amount of water which is used. This, in turn, will inevitably, I believe, push us in the direction of some form of metering as a means of assessing how much water a family is using.
I shall be told, of course, that to talk about metering in national terms is to talk about £300 million, but I wonder whether we have to content ourselves with the idea that there is one sort of water meter which will never change, which will never be modified and will never be made cheaper. I do not believe that to be so. I am sure that if the water industry put its mind to producing some form of cheap meter it would not be beyond the wit of man to do it. For my part, I should like to see all new houses now being built supplied with a water meter already installed. That would be one way of meeting a future cost.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that half the water charges are in fact for sewerage? Although it has been suggested that one may be able to put in a meter to charge for water supplied, no one has yet suggested a practical way of metering sewage as it is sent out of a dwelling.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has little faith in human ingenuity. I have no doubt that if such a meter is required it will be discovered.
I have concentrated on the question of charging because it brings me to the whole point of the order, namely, that the Thames water authority, which supplies my constituents, is being required to find £4·39 million in the year 1980–81—an increase of 1½p in the pound on the water rate to my constituents—and, at the same time as the authority is being asked to find that money to produce the spurious equality which the right hon. Member for Small Heath thought he was producing, my constituents are being asked also under section 30 of the Water Act to find a further 4½p in the pound, because, being supplied by the Thames water authority, they are within the area which includes Greater London and, as we see the industrial and commercial premises in Greater London changing their water charging basis as a result of the 1976 amendment to section 30 of the Water Act, so we shall see those premises paying much less for the water they use and my constituents, mainly domestic consumers, paying very much more.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a measure to

equalise charges between one authority and another, but the fact is that all the nine water authorities have already equalised their charges within their own areas, including his own. Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to the equalisation of charges within the Southern water authority or within the London authority, because the large conurbations within his own authority area in fact help his constituents in the New Forest constituency? The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must be logical. If they object to water equalisation, they must object to it within their own regions as well as between one region and another.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's geography is so rusty. If he thinks that the New Forest is in the Thames valley, he must do a bit more homework. I represent Newbury in Berkshire.
There is all the difference in the world between talking about compensation for the supply of water before it is supplied to domestic consumers and talking about the final price that the consumer has to pay. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman came unstuck in imagining that there was one simple answer which would produce, as he put it, a method which would allow water to be charged to the nation, as is electricity or gas.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that argument is erroneous because he knows the geophysical problems of supplying water in those terms. They are very difficult. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will also know, however much he may choose to shout, that the calculation of payment for the water equalisation order is so complicated that I doubt whether he could stand up at the Dispatch Box now and state exactly how it is worked out, despite the fact that the Act was his brainchild. He will also know that there are many people who query the basis of the order on the ground that it does nothing to increase the efficiency of the supply of water. Indeed, the calculation works in such mysterious ways that, as we are told, to make some minor change, a computer has to go through the most incredible electronic convolutions.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member's wages go through a computer.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Member is now moving from water to wages. I want to stick to this point about getting some equity and fairness into water charging. Just as we shall do without the Act, because it has not worked, so we have to look at the question of charging once more, through fresh eyes.
I return to the point about section 30. It is not reasonable or fair, it seems to me, to expect those living in the Thames water authority area to have to carry the huge burden which will be placed on their shoulders as a result of the implementation of section 30. If the Water Charges Equalisation Act deemed that all water consumers were equal, section 30 proved that some were more equal than others. If we are looking for equity and fairness, that Act is not the way to it and the sooner it goes the better.
When that Act has gone, the question will remain: how do we produce more equity in water charging and, in particular for my constituents, how are we to save them from carrying a burden in their water rate, quite unlike almost any other part of the country and which for some of them will be all but unbearable?

Mr. David Stoddart: The speech of the Minister in moving the order was described as remarkable. It certainly was, because I do not think I have ever before heard a Minister promote an order and then speak against it. I was most perturbed that he told us that it would be the last such order to be brought forward—although he then appeared to move away from that position—but did not tell us what was to take its place. Anyone who votes for this order on the basis of the Minister's speech is buying a pig in a poke. I hope that, like me, a good many other hon. Members will vote against the order and put it out this time. Let us act now and not take any notice of possibly spurious promises about the future.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is entitled to have great hopes that Tory Members will support him since many Tory Members voted against the 1977 Act. We are looking forward to the support of those hon. Members tonight.

Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to my

attention. I had noted that a good many Tory Members voted against the original measure. No doubt they will follow up their actions by voting with my hon. Friends and me tonight.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the Minister was one of those who voted against the measure at that time?

Mr. Stoddart: I note that point. I suppose it is too much to hope that he will cross the Floor tonight.
A good deal has been said against this order tonight. I, too, represent a constituency in the Thames water authority area. Like other people in London, people in my constituency pay very high rates, and we have noted that in other areas which receive benefit under this order people pay relatively low rates. It is absurd that poor householders and others in my constituency should have to subsidise poor people—and, indeed, rich people—in Wales and the South-West. That is a positive absurdity. If we want to equalise charges, we should equalise them in accordance with ability of the person to pay. If my right hon. and hon. Friends had thought more about that in the original Bill which we passed, it would have been a better Act. I hope that there will be more thought about that between now and the time when we vote.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), pointed out, since the equalisation charge, to a large degree, is based on capital expenditure before 1976, it is true that consumers in forward-looking authorities have not only paid for their own good, well-timed capital development but are now having to pay for capital development in other places which did not take place when it should have done.

Mr. Alec Jones: Nonsense.

Mr. Stoddart: My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) should listen. He will learn something as well. I was at one time leader of Reading county borough council. Together with Berkshire county council, we promoted the amalgamation of the water authorities in Berkshire and South Oxfordshire. I became a founder member of that water authority and chairman of the land and works committee, which was responsible for capital development.
I know that the central authority in Reading, which had spent money in goodtime, was a well-run and well-capitalised authority. But we found, when we went to surrounding areas, that a great deal of capital which should have been spent had not been spent. It had to be spent then.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Welsh authorities did not do that.

Mr. Stoddart: Perhaps the Welsh water authorities did not, and perhaps that is the reason why we are having this argument tonight. The point I am making is that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North are on the ball. I have seen this in operation.
We have been talking here about £4·39 million to be payable by the Thames water authority, but I also want to make the point that by the end of 1981 the Thames water authority will have contributed about £10 million to this equalisation charge. That is patently absurd, and unfair to consumers in that area. I sincerely hope that all those who voted against the order last time will join us in the Lobby again tonight so that we can reject this order.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I feel that I am rather out of tune with the debate because I support the general concept of the order. I shall vote for it if there is a Division.
Surely it is logical that the wealthier areas should support the poorer areas over the supply of water. I see nothing wrong with that concept. The South-West water authority covers much the same acreage as the Thames authority. However, the South-West authority has about 1¾ million ratepayers to pay the bill while the Thames authority has between 8 million and 10 million. It is the argument of the urban areas against the rural areas. The cost per head of supplying wholesome water in rural areas is much greater than in urban areas. The cost of removing sewage from houses in rural areas is considerably more than the cost of so doing in urban areas. Surely the areas in which the services are cheaper to provide should make a contribution to the areas where expenditure is inevitably much higher.
My second reason for supporting the concept embodied in the order has already

been referred to by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd). It is a problem that has to be faced in the South-West area. Cornwall is capable of financing its water and sewerage systems for 10 months of the year. However, in July and August the problem extends beyond the capabilities of the ratepayers in the part of Cornwall that I represent.
Some system of support must be given to provide a credible and safe system for those who wish to enjoy holidays in Cornwall. I speak of Cornwall, but the argument is the same for Devon. Such a system must be found if we are to maintain present standards.
Cornwall has a winter population of about 400,000. That is the population from which ratepayers may be found. The statisticians tell me—I am always rather dubious about the figures—that during the peak of August Cornwall's population exceeds 1½ million and may reach 1¾ million. It is a system for 1¾ million for which the people of Cornwall are having to pay, not a system for 400,000. It would be impossible for local self-support to finance the system. The answer is a tourist tax, but every time that is discussed we never find an appropriate solution. If that is not possible, one solution is help through the rate support grant. I regret that the enabling Act abolished that form of support, as its passing has caused many of the problems that are experienced in the area that I represent.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Thames region has to provide water and sewerage facilities for him and others who come from Cornwall?

Mr. Penhaligon: I am prepared to make a contribution for those from Cornwall who come into the Thames region provided that the converse is accepted. The wisdom of Cornish folk means that the traffic is very much in one direction, except for a few who are crazy enough to be elected to this place.
The system in my area is on the verge of a breakdown. The hon. Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and Falmouth and Camborne are in the Chamber. That indicates the seriousness of the problem. In my constituency, two-thirds of the area is now subject to a total embargo on any


form of planning. That has been imposed by the South-West water authority. It is concerned that health and hygiene in the rivers and seas cannot be maintained if any more sewage is poured into the present system. The same situation applies throughout the length and breadth of Devon and Cornwall. The system is on the verge of a breakdown.
The district councils and the county councils no longer have responsibility for planning. Responsibility lies with the water authority. It was given an impossible job by the Government when it was formed. It is now the planning authority in my constituency and inneighbouring constituencies. Do the Government recognise the size of the problem in areas such as mine? If they are to scrap the present system of support, will there be no support in future, or will a better system be produced? If the Government intend to take the latter course, I am in favour. I might even support the scheme that they produce.
The idea of a totally fair system of charging for sewage disposal and water supply is not realistic. The charge for the water supply to farms in my area—I know that this is common to many other areas—is based not on the amount that is used but on the diameter of the pipes that happen to lead into the farms. There is no connection between the diameter of the pipes and the size of the farm.
To achieve a fair system of sewage disposal, I suppose that we must analyse the rainfall in various parts of the country, on various houses and sites, because the rainfall on a person's property affects what must be installed to help with the disposal. It is not on to kid ourselves that a totally fair system can be produced for water and sewage disposal. There is an impossible position in some areas and a simple one in others. Will the Government maintain a system under which those who are fortunate help the others?

1 am

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I inject a point of sweet reason into this otherwise angry debate, which rises above mere constituency interest, and talk about the rubbish that we put into our legislation? I draw the Minister's attention to article 2(2),which reads:

Any reference in this order to a numbered article or schedule shall be construed as a reference to the article or schedule bearing that number in this order.
I wonder what it could possibly be construed as meaning other than that the numbered article refers to the numbered article in the order. It is like saying that any reference to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Minister. That is as big a load of rubbish as we shall find anywhere.
I know that this provision appears in all such statutory instruments. However, it is self-evident that such a reference refers to an article in the order. If not, or if the parliamentary draftsmen think that some other form of words should be used to ensure that any reference to article 5 in the order refers to article 5 in the order, why is it not possible to draft the paragraph in a way which ordinary people can understand without having to laugh at it? Why not say, for example, in article 3, line 4:
in accordance with the provisions of article 5 below"?
Why not say, in article 5:
Each equalisation levy payable under article 3 above"?
If that form of words is not acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen, why do we not include the words:
article 5 of this order
or
article 3 of this order"?
In that way, we should use five instead of 28 words. Everybody would know what it meant. We should not go on churning out this rubbish, which I thought the Government were determined not to do.

Mr. Keith Best: My hon. Friend should be grateful for small mercies. When the order says "shall be construed", it is at least mandatory. It might have said "may be construed", which would have given a discretion to the Minister.

Mr. Lawrence: I do not wish to give the Minister any more discretion than he showed when introducing the order tonight. I merely wish to point out that in future drafts of this kind we could simplify the legislation, as the Renton committee recommended.

Mr. Alec Jones: I certainly do not want to get drawn into the matter of the exact wording of the order, although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said.
I cannot understand why hon. Members on both sides of the House say that the Act does not work but then say that they intend to vote against the order because it does work. There were two misconceptions. A great deal was said about rates. The Conservative Party, when previously in office, took water completely outside our rating system. This order does not deal with rates, and, though I sympathise with those who have problems with sewerage charges, it has nothing to do with those charges.
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said that the Welsh should pay for their corner. I point out to the hon. Member that many areas of this country benefit from this order. Wales is not the only beneficiary. Areas such as East Anglia, Northumbria and a whole range of other areas are involved, including those covered by the private water companies that were included in the orginal Act on the direct request, pressure and votes of the Conservative Party.
The Welsh area and other areas—especially those where there is a super-abundance of water—are well prepared to pay. I invite the Minister and the whole House to take into account the views of the Daniel committee which investigated this problem. That committee said that the only alternatives available were to accept some form of equalisation—neither the order nor the Act went that far; the Act merely dealt with partial equalisation—or to allow and encourage water authorities to sell their surplus water.
The legal advice given to the Welsh water authority was as follows:
The Welsh authority can, by an agreement made under section 12 of the Water Act 1945 (as substituted by section 12 and Schedule 4 of the Act of 1973)"—
passed by the Conservative Party—
lawfully make a charge on the English authority for the bulk supply which exceeds the cost of providing that supply.
So either we accept something along the lines of the Act and this order or we deliberately encourage authorities with a

surplus of water to sell it to the highest bidder.
If that policy were to be adopted, it would jeopardise water supplies, not to Wales but to other major parts of this country which suffered from the drought of 1976. If that is what the Minister and the Government want, I give them fair warning on behalf of the Welsh authority that they can have it. Such a policy would destroy any hope of a rational water supply for this country. We hold the view—we have always held the view—that the water supply to all parts of the United Kingdom depends on the willingness to transfer supplies of water from a region that is in surplus to one that is not, based on the no-profit and no-loss principle. To transfer water from Wales to another region means that we need long-term planning and agreement between those affected.
We all know the problems that we suffered in the drought of 1976. We all know of the problem over the location of reservoirs. If there is a feeling of unfairness in one part of the United Kingdom about the cost of the water supply to domestic consumers, it is unreasonable to expect people to accept the siting of reservoirs in their area and yet permit the free transfer of water from that area to another.
There was unfairness when the Act was introduced. There was a tremendous increase in water charges in Wales, as opposed to almost any other part of the United Kingdom, including the London area. That was why we set up the Daniel committee, which quite clearly showed that the increased costs were costs of distribution and nothing to do with the efficiency of the water authority. They were basically increased costs which were a consequence of trying to provide adequate water supplies, principally to rural areas.
Therefore, we were faced with a choice. Unless we had something like what was recommended in the Daniel committee report, involving partial equalisation, we would have been forced to say that people must pay more for water if they lived in rural areas. If we want to ensure a fair distribution of water on a no-profit, no-loss basis, there must be some form of water equalisation. I believe that we should support the order.

Mr. Fox: With the leave of the House, I shall quickly reply to some of the contributions. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said in 1977 that the scheme was working. In 1978 he said that it was working extremely well. One wonders what he would have said about it this year had he been in Government. If the scheme is working so well, how is it that bills in the Northumbrian water authority area will fall from 18 per cent, below the national average to 25 per cent. below, as a result of this order? The Anglian area bills will fall from exactly the national average to 7 per cent. below. On the other hand, bills in the Thames water authority area, already 12 per cent. above the average, will rise to about 18 per cent above. The worst example of all is the Wessex water authority, which is 27 per cent. above the average.
Of course, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) said about capital resources and the answerability of the water authorities. If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) listens carefully to what I have to say at the end of my speech, he may gain some satisfaction. I do not wish to talk tonight about the virtues of a tourist tax.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was honest in that he admitted that the average bills in the Thames water authority area are about £20, and in Wales, even after equalisation, they are £25. It was less than fair to introduce rating generally and to make comparisons between London and Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) is quite right

about the private water companies, which are paying in excess of £2 million.

The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) does not like this order at all. I welcome his support for my view. The ability to pay and the amount of water used are matters for another occasion.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that this is the last order that we shall make. I take note of his observations on metering. I think that he exaggerates about section 30 of the Water Act. My latest information is that the burden, when section 30 is fully implemented, will not be as harsh as he thinks.

The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) says that I keep amazing him. He amazes the House constantly. He is really more in conflict with his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath than with me. I urge him not to vote against the order tonight, because we shall bring about what he seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is far too learned to have spent so much time on article 2(2). We shall take note of that. I have made the point that this will be the last full order under the Act. There will, however, have to be at least one more order just to tidy up the transfers that have been made before on the basis of estimated figures. We Conservatives do not like estimated figures. The Government have in mind—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business): —

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 8.

Division No.128]
AYES
[1.15 am


Adley, Robert
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Ancram, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen
Grist, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Dover, Denshore
Hampson, Dr Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Heddle, John


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Timothy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Blackburn, John
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hooson, Tom


Brinton, Tim
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fanner, Mrs Peggy
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Kershaw, Anthony


Colvin, Michael
Gorst, John
Lang, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Gow, Ian
Lawrence, Ivan


Cryer, Bob
Gower, Sir Raymond
Le Marchant, Spencer




Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Parris, Matthew
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Donald


Lyell, Nicholas
Patten, John (Oxford)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Penhaligon, David
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Major, John
Proctor, K. Harvey
Viggers, Peter


Marland, Paul
Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Marlow, Tony
Rees-Davles, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Waller, Gary


Mellor, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rowlands, Ted
Watson, John


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wickenden, Keith


Mudd, David
Sims, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Neale, Gerrard
Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin



Newton, Tony
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Normanton, Tom
Stevens, Martin
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling Thomas, J.
 Mr. John Cope.




NOES


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Lamond, James



Cartwright, John
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Soley, Clive
Mr. David Stoddart and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Graham, Ted
Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.
That the draft Water Charges Equalisation Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 7 December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL FOR MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

That, with effect from 1st January 1980, Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings) be amended, as follows:


Line 2, leave out 'eleven o'clock' and insert 'half past nine o'clock'.


Line 10, leave out 'four o'clock, a quarter to five o'clock and half past five o'clock' and insert 'half past two o'clock, a quarter past three o'clock and four o'clock'.


Line 18, leave out 'half past five o'clock' and insert 'four o'clock'.


Line 24, at end add—


'(3A) At eleven o'clock Mr Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members.


(3B) If the House is in Committee at eleven o'clock, on an occasion when Mr. Speaker's intention to permit such questions, statements or explanations has been made known, the Chairman shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and report that the Committee have made progress and ask leave to sit again'.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Michael English: It is very laudable and proper that a motion should be on the Order Paper to approve what the House decided on 31 October—so laudable and proper that one wonders why the Leader of the

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities in Scotland to provide concessionary travel schemes for handicapped persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Fairgrieve.]

Orders of the Day — STANDING ORDER No. 5 (FRIDAY SITTINGS)

Motion made

House is not here to move it. I suppose that it is because it is 1.25 am, but he is the one person in the House who decides what time his own business comes on, so he might at least have had the grace to be here.

However, you will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the apparent intention of this motion is to place in Standing Orders the decision of the House on 31 October. That is to be found on page 381 of the Votes and Proceedings. It is Item No. 28 there, where procedure motion No. 4 says that the House agrees to paragraph 9.27 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78.

That is very simple and very short. That paragraph says:
For these reasons we have concluded that a radical reorganisation of hours of sitting should not be recommended. We accept, however, the argument that an earlier time of rising on Fridays would be of benefit to Members who have to travel long distances to their constituencies. We therefore recommend that on Fridays the House should sit at 9.30 am, that business should be interrupted at 2.30 pm, and that the normal time of rising should therefore be soon after 3 pm, instead of 4.30 pm.

The portion of this motion that relates to lines 2, 10 and 18 in Standing Order No. 5 implements that resolution to perfection. I am well aware that the Leader of the House, in that debate, mentioned as an aside that he would prefer it if statements were made at 11 o'clock instead of 9.30 or instead of at the end of proceedings. I suppose that Ministers cannot get to the House before that time, even if Back Benchers can do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is never here on Fridays."] As Conservative Members say, it may be that he is not here on Fridays. If that is so, it may be the reason and the explanation.

However, the point is that ministerial statements are not decisions of the House. The decision of the House was to agree paragraph 9.27 of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. That is perfectly well implemented by the first four lines of the motion. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must object to the fifth and subsequent lines—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Objection taken.

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made,
That Mr. Alan Williams be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — MG SPORTS CAR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Robert Adley: I am glad to have the opportunity, albeit at 1.29 am, to raise the question of the future of the MG sports car, which is at this moment in some doubt.
By way of declaration of interest, I should explain that my brother-in-law is a former MG-sponsored racing driver, and for that reason our family is extremely interested in the future of this motor car. The fact that a number of my hon. Friends are sitting around me, accompanied by a number of MG fans in the Gallery of the House at this time of the morning, is an indication of the widespread interest in this subject.
It is a national issue, as the MG car still accounts for more than 50 per cent. of British Leyland sales in the North American market. The success of the MG, which it is still enjoying, is a success in spite of and not because of the interest of the management of British Leyland in this motor car.
Tonight I wish briefly to look at the matter from the point of view of the Government and of British Leyland. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we are not here to ask the Government to supply money. We are not seeking anaesthetics for lame ducks. The situation as far as MG is concerned is quite the reverse. We want the Government to encourage the rolling back of the dead hand of State intervention, which has brought MG to its present situation. MG is to British Leyland as Asprey's is to Bond Street. It is the star in a sea of mediocrity. It will not be the Allegros and Marinas that will leave their trace on motoring history for Britsh Leyland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has, to my displeasure, constantly repeated that it is not his intention to intervene in the MG affair. What does he mean by non-intervention? Non-intervention to me—and I am sure that my colleagues who are present will agree—means not using the taxpayer to save the inefficient, the unproductive and


the unmarketable from their deserved fate. We support that definition, but surely in the case of MG it does not mean sanctioning the creation of a State monopoly of British sports cars at the expense of the national interest and private enterprise.
British Leyland's commercial interest in the matter is clear, and it seems to dominate the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Its interest is in killing off MG as quickly as possible. MG competes with the TR7, and British Leyland is hooked on the TR7, thanks to a long history connected with Lord Stokes, which I shall not go into now. As far as British Leyland is concerned, the sooner it can kill off the MG the better.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry wrote to me on 22 November this year, explaining the Government's position. He said:
it would be quite inconsistent for us to require BL to act in any other than their own business interests on a particular issue like MG.
If the Government encourage private capital involvement in the case of British Airways and British Aerospace, surely it is consistent to do so in the case of British Leyland.
If the national interest conflicts with British Leyland's commercial interests, I believe that the Government have an important role. In this unique situation of MG, there is that conflict of interest, and, as I see it, the Government's duty is to uphold the national interest above the narrow commercial interests of British Leyland.
My main plea to my hon. Friend tonight is a simple one. When Sir Michael Edwardes comes along and asks for more money for British Leyland, will he make it a condition of the giving of more funds that British Leyland be required to sell off to commercial interests, where there is a willing buyer, those production facilities that British Leyland either cannot or will not maintain? I believe that British Leyland plans, as originally announced for the MG factory, are a national insult. To stick the MG mark on a TR7 is bad enough, but to stick it on a Honda would be totally unacceptable to many thousands of people in this country and around the world.

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend agree that that insult is equalled by the fact that there is not one Member of the Labour Party here to listen to the debate on the future of a vitally important member of our most important indigenous motor car manufacturing company?

Mr. Adley: I regret their absence. However, I am in full contact with Labour Members and I know that they would prefer to see MG continue private enterprise production rather than go out of business.
The national interest demands that the MG car should be maintained as a British-made sports car, particularly in view of its role in the United States market. The MG car club has 6,000members in the United Kingdom and more than 25,000 members overseas and there are 54 MG car clubs overseas, including those in Yugoslavia and Japan. I doubt whether the Marina or the Allegro will ever claim such distinction.
BL claims that it loses £900 per car sold. It also states that it is selling all the cars that it can make. I am a business man and if I ran my business that way I would expect to get the sack. If the circumstances described by BL are accurate, it is either charging too much for overheads or is selling at the wrong price, or both. It smacks of thoroughly bad management. I wish to see MG saved from the fate which has befallen Riley and Wolseley, which became victims of BL's "progress story".
There is a saviour at hand. I am not here to act as spokesman for Aston Martin-Lagonda. However, that company has expressed a firm financial interest in maintaining MG production by taking over the MG factory from BL. It wishes to maintain and, indeed, to increase the production of the sports car. Above all others, that company is best qualified to provide the proof that in this plastic era there is a growing demand for specialisation, quality and individuality—the qualities which identify the MG car.
I shall quote from two letters among the many that I have received. The first is from an MG dealer, Mr. Beer, of Houghton, who says:
If it had not been for my extreme loyalty for the marque MG I would not have suffered


BL and would have sold some other make of vehicle. There lies the underlying reason for BL's gradual downhill slide. Any dealer who was really any good and had no inner feelings said enough, I am going foreign'.
It is these inner feelings on which we must build in this country. We must not allow these feelings which are so important to be destroyed. I hope that my second quotation will not embarrass any member of the Government. It comes from the political adviser to a member of the Cabinet:
It shows a complete misunderstanding of the 'mystique' surrounding MG for British Leyland to suppose the present world-wide following for MG is going to continue for a Honda, or even a Triumph, sold with an MG label. As far as the enthusiast is concerned, the MG 'proper' will have stopped in 1979 and anything sold by British Leyland as an MG after that will have no more attraction than a Marina or an Allegro, and possibly a lot less.
The loyalty of the customer and the tremendous achievements of the Abingdon work force have been, and remain, the cornerstones of the success of MG. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) will catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall terminate my remarks to a allow others of my hon. Friends to make their contributions.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on the way in which he put across the case for MG nationally. It is more than a national problem—it is very much a constituency problem for Abingdon. The work of MG has continued and flourished for more than 50 years in Abingdon and the proposal is a tragedy for the work force. The crash of 1979 for Abingdon will mean the possible loss of 1,100 jobs and all that that will bring. It is a dash in the teeth for the work that the work force has done for BL and the country over the years. There have been first-class labour relations. The strike record is excellent and low and there is a traditional father-to-son relationship of excellence which has continued over the years.
The Abingdon work force is all that BL does not have in other parts of its empire. It should be regarded by BL as the Cinderella. The "ugly sisters" have told the work force in Abingdon that it cannot go to the jubilee ball. Indeed, the

work force has not been told, but the press has told it. Not only that, but the work force was told that it would have to clean the Japanese pumpkin as well.
Not only are 1,100 people in my constituency facing the sack, but the engineering firms in and around the constituency, who make the bits to go inside the MG car, will face tremendous devastation if the plans go through.
I fully recognise that Abingdon forms part of a team, albeit an important part, involved in the manufacture of the car. English sports cars have been built there successfully for the past 50 years. That is what the workers wish to continue to do, and they deserve far better than to spend the rest of their lives unpacking Japanese bits. They feel aggrieved that they have not had answers to the questions that they have asked of the management of British Leyland and that they have not had the position and plans fully explained to them. They deserve much better.
If British Leyland cannot make the sports car pay, it should be sold to the highest bidder. I am delighted that AlanCurtis of Aston Martin is making encouraging noises, but it would be wrong to raise too many hopes and expectations, because they are many problems still to resolve.
May I say to whoever purchases MG—and I pray that a purchaser will be found—that the car should not be made in Kilmarnock, Dumfries or anywhere but Abingdon, where it has been made successfully for the past 50 years?

Mr. Robert Hicks: I declare an interest as the owner of an MG sports car. It is an excellent car. I have a large and varied constituency. I drive 1,000 miles a month and the MG has been the most reliable car that I have ever had. If it helps me to increase my majority, as it did at the last election, I hope that we go on making them for many more years.
Most people would agree that for the past 20 years this country and the car industry have experienced a period of rapid change. At times one feels that some of the change has been for the sake of change. One consequence has been that we have destroyed some of what is best in Britain.
The MG has an excellent and successful record. It has an international, as well as national, reputation. British Leyland, in its commercial wisdom, has decided to back the TR range rather than the MG. That is its decision, but I believe that it would be a sad day for Britain and for MG and all it stands for if it disappeared from the scene.
The Government and the country as a whole should give every possible encouragement to any appropriate bidder to ensure that MG continues as a car made in the United Kingdom, so that the traditions and strengths that we associate with the car can carry on.

Mr. John Browne: As a Sandhurst cadet, I was the proud owner of a 1934 MG. I also lived for about five years in the United States and I feel strongly about British exports to the United States, particularly MG, which has earned for itself an international name that spells quality of workmanship and motoring enjoyment.
Fifty-four per cent. of British Leyland's sales to the United States are represented by MG. In spite of that, MG has suffered from internal politics within British Leyland. For the good of MG, its management and its employees, and for the good of MG owners throughout the world, I urge the Government seriously to consider the sale of MG by British Leyland. But I urge the Government to beware that a potential purchaser does not buy MG for its name or, most important, for its valuable sales outlets in the United States. The Government must break MG out of British Leyland but ensure that MG cars are still made in Britain, and if possible at Abingdon, where they have been made, to the great pleasure of the motoring public for 50-odd years.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I rise to support my hon. Friends because of the potential for MG in North America. The name MG has passed into the language there like Hoover and Coca-Cola. I have been indirectly contacted by a young American who has a business in Akron, Ohio, which employs six people. It is called University Motors of Akron, like University Motors in London, the MG dealers where he trained.

He is amazed that MG might possibly close and cease to be a marque that is marketed in North America. I therefore add my voice to the voices of my hon. Friends.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): We are all extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for raising this important question. He, as the House knows, has a long and outstanding record in the protection of the industrial heritage of this country. His work on the SS "Great Britain" is well known. It is typical of him that he should take this task upon himself. I appreciate the support he has had from my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and Winchester (Mr. Browne).
I have the greatest sympathy with the underlying motivations of my hon. Friends and all those outside the House in the general argument that is being put forward in respect of MG. I immediately declare an interest. My first car was an MG TC. I progressed to an MG TF. For 10 years I ran an MGB GT until, sadly and just recently, as the children got too big, I had to move on to quieter pastures.
I can fairly claim to stand comparison with any of my hon. Friends in my commitment to the MG cause. However, I hope that my hon. Friends will be realistic and recognise the problems the Government face in dsicussing the matter tonight. There is, first, the question of the whole future of BL and its corporate plan, which the Government are considering. My hon. Friends will not expect tonight to hear a pronouncement on that broader issue.
My hon. Friends will also understand that while discussions are in progress between Aston Martin-Lagonda and BL, these are commercially confidential. These are two obvious constraints.
I want to take the opportunity of putting what I understand to be the present position. There are one or two fears that I can partly assuage. There has been reference to the famous MG marque, that famous octagon that we all prize so highly. That marque is not, according to the assurances I have heard, likely


to be put on a Honda car. BL has ceased production of the smaller of the two MG models, the Midget. The major model, the MGB, is to continue in production until the end of 1980, and stocks will continue to serve the markets, principally North America, into 1981. As I understand it, the present prospect is that at some time during that year a distinctive development of the Triumph TR range will be introduced. This model will carry the MG badge, as may possibly other later BL models.
The reasoning for BL discontinuing the present MG models is based on a number of factors, which many of my hon. Friends will understand but which I should perhaps briefly recapitulate. The first, of course, is the problem of legislation, particularly the emission legislation in the United States. I need not dwell on that very much because I think that the implications are obvious.
Another factor to be considered is product acceptability. Although much can be said and has been said—I specified my own commitment—the fact remains that this model has been around for rather a long time.
The third aspect is that of market size and profitability. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington touched on this. I think, in fairness, that he will accept that one of the reasons, which everyone can understand, for the difficulties over exports to the United States has been the way that the pound has strengthened against the dollar. This is relevant to the arguments about profitability.
Let me turn now to the main argument advanced by my hon. Friend. He draws a distinction between, on the one hand, what he sees as intervention by way of the provision of taxpayers' money to support an ailing British Leyland and, on the other, intervention with the object of saving taxpayers' money. Despite the ever-lucid way in which my hon. Friend puts the argument, I suggest that the difference is perhaps more apparent than real. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, as I have said, has under consideration the 1980 BL corporate plan. As he said the other day, the plan envisages the provision of public funding additional to that already provided to

BL by our predecessors. I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome of that consideration, but I put this thought to my hon. Friend.
If, for the sake of argument, my right hon. Friend were to come to the House and say that it had been agreed that we should put forward more money from the taxpayers' purse, what justification should we reasonably put to the House? I think that all my hon. Friends will have different answers to that question, but I am sure that no one—least of all my right hon. Friend—would feel it right to present a justification other than that it was to make profitable products, be they models or components.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend please make clear to the House that he accepts that there may well be occasions when the national interest departs from British Leyland's purely commercial interests, and if this can be seen to be so the former and not the latter will have the Government's support?

Mr. Marshall: I certainly take my hon. Friend's point, and I think that this really means getting down to cases to assess what is truly in the national interest. I think that we shall have to judge that by the test which is exemplified in the old saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
In arguing for intervention, my hon. Friend is, I know, trying to look more generally to what he would see as the national interest, but I think that he will recognise also that if, for example, an outsider approaches BL with an offer to take over MG or any other asset, then, provided that there is some sensible possibility of the offer being commercially advantageous to BL, BL has an obligation to look at that proposal. That is a normal commercial obligation upon BL and its shareholders, who are not just the NEB but a number of private individuals. It is an obligation which, naturally, we should expect BL to look at.
In fairness, I should say that BL has expressed its willingness to look at any likely proposals which may come forward. My understanding is that the discussions which have taken place between Aston Martin-Lagonda and BL have been discussions which Aston Martin-Lagonda says are very significant and have been of value at this stage. So we must, as it


were, immediately acquit BL of any suggestion that it is not considering offers.
I should like to take the point a little further. If we assume that someone, whoever it may be, has made an offer to BL, the question must then come as to what would happen if, in effect, we endeavoured to achieve a forced sale. I think that it cannot be said that if we were to do that we should be working in the best interests not just of the shareholders but of the taxpayer. These are, therefore, matters of getting down, as it were, to cases.
Certainly, if we demanded that BL should sell against its judgment, BL and its shareholders would be entitled to say "There will be a price to be paid by us for that action; we ask you to compensate us for your decision." It would be difficult for us to resist such a claim.
I turn now to what I think is the more hopeful situation. I think that my hon. Friend has realistically recognised that things have perhaps moved on since some of these issues were first raised. He and many of my hon. Friends may well feel entitled to take some credit for arousing the interest they have in this subject. The concern which has been expressed by my hon. Friend is shared in all parts of the House. I make the point that in broad terms we expect British Leyland to adjust its manning realistically to reflect the production demands placed upon it by its position in the market place.
Nevertheless, and here I come particularly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, it is important to say that recent indications from the company suggest that the prospects for Abingdon are rather brighter than initially seemed likely. BL last week described to its employees a range of proposals of which I know my hon. Friend will be aware but which it will be useful to mention to my other hon. Friends. The range of proposals dealt with the future use of Abingdon. I must enter the caveat that these have not yet been finalised, but these are the proposals as we understand them for the future of Abingdon.
First, export packing activities will be transferred from Cowley to Abingdon, releasing space at Cowley needed to support new model programmes. Next,

Abingdon's existing work on special tuning of cars and motor sport activities will continue, as well as its air pollution centre. Perhaps the most interesting proposal is the setting up of the specialised vehicle production facility. The idea here is to take partially completed vehicles from various of BL's volume production lines and finish them to special specification. These might include a wide range of models—the Princess, perhaps the new Metro, the LC10. Obviously much of this comes back to the problem I outlined at the beginning, namely, what will be the future of BL under its corporate plan. Assuming that the opportunities arise, as we all hope they will, that is the kind of range envisaged.
The project could move on to work involving luxury trim fitting, high performance derivatives, specially tuned cars and limited edition runs of volume cars. It is also possible that some of the high-performance derivatives would bear the special MG badge. Some of these developments will be felt to be very much in the MG tradition. This is something which MG has specialised in from the beginning—a limited volume of special cars based largely on standard engineering components. That is true even with the present models, the Midget and the MGB.
The employment indications of the present proposals would appear to be rather involved, but it would seem on balance as though there is a very good chance, with the interchange of Abingdon and Cowley, to move into a reasonably balanced situation.
I return to the speech of my hon. Frend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington. The points he has made will have been widely noted inside and outside the House. I end on a note of conditional optimism. Subject to the overriding question of BL's future, there is, under present plans, no intention that the MG name, on cars which deserve its application, will disappear from our roads or those of our overseas customers.
In fairness, I must say that I was one of those, and possibly there were others among my right hon. and hon. Friends, who jibbed when we moved from the TC to the TF and to the MGB. We must be fair-minded and allow whoever produces the MG car to prove that, perhaps in a new range of models, they can produce models worthy of that fine and traditional


name. I think it is even possible that we shall see a continuation of the MGB. It is clear that there is a range of possibilities open to us. What is clear, above all, thanks to the energy of my hon. Friends,

is that the reports of the death of the MG have been greatly exaggerated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.